TPO 30 -Integrated writing

Essay topics:

TPO 30 -Integrated writing

The passage discusses a fascinating topic pertaining to the myth about the burning mirror and provides three reasons of support to establish that it was a myth that Greeks used burning mirror to defend themselves from the Roman navy. However, the professor explains that he does not believe that "Burning mirror" is a myth and refutes each of the author's reasons.

First of all, the passage discusses that the ancient Greeks were not technologically advanced to build such type of device. In contrast, the professor provides information that refutes this point. He states that there was a scientist who was acknowledged enough to build such a thing. He had the knowledge of geometry and knew the technology to build such a mirror with the sheet of coppers.

Second, the article pushes forth the idea that burning mirror would have taken a long time to set the ships on fire. Nevertheless, the lecture contends that by saying that ships were not built just of woods: a substance called pitch was used to make the boat waterproof and it is very sensitive to fire and an experiment shows that within 30 seconds it can set a fire. So event the ships were on move by using burning mirror it was very easy to set fire on the boat and once it begins it will spread to all over the ship quickly. Consequently, indeed the claim made in reading is unsubstantiated and unacceptable.

Finally, the reading posits that burning mirror does not seem like an improvement comparing their flaming arrows. The professor refutes this point by explaining that Romans were aware of flaming arrows so they would have taken some steps to prevent the boats from flaming arrows but they had no idea about burning mirror and it does the harm without getting noticed. Moreover, it was surprising to them and more effective than flaming arrows to cause harm.

Votes
Average: 8 (1 vote)
This essay topic by users
Post date Users Rates Link to Content
2018-08-23 Kanak 80 view
Essay Categories
Essays by user Kanak :

Comments

Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, consequently, finally, first, however, moreover, second, so, in contrast

Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 10.4613686534 124% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 7.30242825607 137% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 12.0772626932 116% => OK
Pronoun: 31.0 22.412803532 138% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 38.0 30.3222958057 125% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1520.0 1373.03311258 111% => OK
No of words: 313.0 270.72406181 116% => OK
Chars per words: 4.85623003195 5.08290768461 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.20616286096 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.59922562092 2.5805825403 101% => OK
Unique words: 162.0 145.348785872 111% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.517571884984 0.540411800872 96% => OK
syllable_count: 459.9 419.366225166 110% => 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: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.

Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 21.2450331126 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 52.7385252052 49.2860985944 107% => OK
Chars per sentence: 108.571428571 110.228320801 98% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.3571428571 21.698381199 103% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.5 7.06452816374 78% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.27373068433 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?

Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.493237453064 0.272083759551 181% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.149318656391 0.0996497079465 150% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0993376676914 0.0662205650399 150% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.263915924991 0.162205337803 163% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0555931751567 0.0443174109184 125% => OK

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.6 13.3589403974 94% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 57.61 53.8541721854 107% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 11.0289183223 97% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.2 12.2367328918 92% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.11 8.42419426049 96% => OK
difficult_words: 67.0 63.6247240618 105% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.498013245 103% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => OK
What are above readability scores?

---------------------

Rates: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.0 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.