tpo 30
The material discusses the concept of using the Greek “burning mirror” as a weapon. While the reading looks at the topic from one perspective, the listening challenges certain points outlined in the reading passage.
Firstly, the reading details specific points regarding this topic, namely it is a sophisticated weapon, and the Greeks were not advanced enough to create it. Next, the Burning mirror takes a long time to fire the unmoving ships. Finally, it is not a new weapon as the Greek already had the flaming arrow.
Conversely, the listening challenges the points one specific contradiction is the Greek could create this sort of weapon by assembling small pieces of polished copper into a parabolic curvature, so it was not a single shite of copper. In addition to that, it could take 10 minutes to firewood by this weapon. But the ships were made by sealing the wood with a waterproof substance called patch. This material can catch fire in seconds even the ships were moving. One final point, in the flaming arrows, the fire was predicted; on that other hand, from the burning mirror, the fire could not be seen. The fire suddenly came out and surprised enemies. Therefore, the burning mirror weapons was an effective one.
In summary, there are obvious discrepancies with the information presented.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...oints outlined in the reading passage. Firstly, the reading details specific po...
^^
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... Greek already had the flaming arrow. Conversely, the listening challenges the...
^^^
Line 4, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... mirror weapons was an effective one. In summary, there are obvious discrepanc...
^^
Line 4, column 79, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...pancies with the information presented.
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, conversely, finally, first, firstly, if, look, regarding, second, so, therefore, while, in addition, in summary, sort of
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 10.4613686534 105% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 7.30242825607 41% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 2.0 12.0772626932 17% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 11.0 22.412803532 49% => OK
Preposition: 24.0 30.3222958057 79% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1123.0 1373.03311258 82% => OK
No of words: 219.0 270.72406181 81% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.12785388128 5.08290768461 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.84690116678 4.04702891845 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.82825757091 2.5805825403 110% => OK
Unique words: 132.0 145.348785872 91% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.602739726027 0.540411800872 112% => OK
syllable_count: 339.3 419.366225166 81% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 21.2450331126 75% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 51.0603541244 49.2860985944 104% => OK
Chars per sentence: 86.3846153846 110.228320801 78% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.8461538462 21.698381199 78% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.61538461538 7.06452816374 136% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 4.19205298013 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.27373068433 47% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.32207356244 0.272083759551 118% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.119085618066 0.0996497079465 120% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0808028938254 0.0662205650399 122% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.171645309666 0.162205337803 106% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0964237768897 0.0443174109184 218% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.2 13.3589403974 84% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 63.7 53.8541721854 118% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.4 11.0289183223 76% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.18 12.2367328918 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.83 8.42419426049 105% => OK
difficult_words: 61.0 63.6247240618 96% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 10.498013245 80% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 76.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.0 Out of 30
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.