TPO 30 ancient Greeks burning mirror

Essay topics:

TPO 30- ancient Greeks burning mirror

The article and the lecture both discuss burning mirror. While the reading states that this invention is suspicious and is more like myth than a fact, the lecturer refutes this, saying that these reasons are unconvincing to reject burning mirror as a clever weapon.
First, the author claims that Greeks did not have such contemporary knowledge to produce such an enormous mirror in that period. However, the speaker argues that Greeks had mathematicians who could make it. Furthermore, she mentions that for producing such a wide mirror, individual little metal particles that had been polished by copper could be used. Besides, Greeks had the expertise of parabola for making parabolic curvature.
According to the writer, using this machine to start burning ships was time-consuming. The professor in the listening passage is doubtful that it is accurate. She emphasizes that the experiment that was mentioned in the reading was taking place on the wood. In contrast, ships contained other materials like a sticky pitch that could get fire in seconds and, consequently, spread the fire through woods, even on moving ships.
Finally, the reading passage argues that ancient Greeks had flaming arrows, which is as expeditious as a burning mirror; so, they did not need to make this weapon. In contrast, the lecturer dismisses this issue since this inventory is much more effective than flaming arrows. In addition, the enemy can see the arrows moving towards them, but in the mirror case, it was surprising to see one part of their ship is burning without figuring out how precisely it happened.

Votes
Average: 8 (1 vote)
Essay Categories
Essays by the user:

Comments

Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 25 in 30
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 3 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 2 2
No. of Sentences: 13 12
No. of Words: 260 250
No. of Characters: 1301 1200
No. of Different Words: 153 150
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.016 4.2
Average Word Length: 5.004 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.544 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 103 80
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 70 60
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 42 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 29 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.638 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.692 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.325 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.498 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.094 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 3 4