TPO-30 - Integrated Writing Task
The reading article and the lecture both discuss a fascinating topic pertaining to an ingenious weapon called a burning mirror, which is used by Greeks to defend themselves from Roman navy attack. According to author Greeks were not able to invent such kind of weapon and to support this provide three reasons. The lecturer casts serious doubts on the claims made in the article, she says that all the reasons in the passage are unconvincing.
first of all, the author of the passage claims that technology was not advance at that time and for this device, the mirror would have a parabolic curvature but with a large sheet of copper it is not possible. This point is challenged by the speaker who says that Greeks did not use a large sheet of paper for making the weapon instead they used several small sheets of copper, which refutes the point from the passage. Furthermore, she points out that Greek mythologists were able to make a parabolic mirror. Clearly, a disparity exists between the passage and the evidence exhibited by the professor.
Secondly, the reading passage discusses that burning mirror takes a long time to set the objects on fire, hence it was not feasible. This argument is rebutted by the lecturer, she says that Roman boats were made from the pitch which catches fire instantly. She elaborates on this by mentioning that it was not necessary for the object to be unmoving as given in the reading instead of this if once a boat catches fire it spreads even it was moving.
Finally, the reading article posits that ancient Greeks were familiar with flaming arrows, there was no need to make flaming arrows. The lecturer, on the other hand, mentions that Roman navy was also familiar with flaming arrows and knew how to tackle with it, but the flaming mirror was quite surprising for them. She puts forth to the idea that Roman navy can not detect the flaming mirror they supposed that it was just a mirror, so it was an effective method to defeat them.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: First
...ons in the passage are unconvincing. first of all, the author of the passage claim...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, furthermore, hence, if, second, secondly, so, kind of, first of all, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 10.4613686534 182% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 5.04856512141 59% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 12.0772626932 132% => OK
Pronoun: 36.0 22.412803532 161% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 41.0 30.3222958057 135% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 5.01324503311 60% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1640.0 1373.03311258 119% => OK
No of words: 346.0 270.72406181 128% => OK
Chars per words: 4.73988439306 5.08290768461 93% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.31289638616 4.04702891845 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.35806979692 2.5805825403 91% => OK
Unique words: 175.0 145.348785872 120% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.505780346821 0.540411800872 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 504.0 419.366225166 120% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 3.25607064018 215% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Interrogative: 0.0 0.116997792494 0% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 26.0 21.2450331126 122% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 41.2046415493 49.2860985944 84% => OK
Chars per sentence: 126.153846154 110.228320801 114% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.6153846154 21.698381199 123% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.69230769231 7.06452816374 123% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => 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: 0.384822251779 0.272083759551 141% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.13336757619 0.0996497079465 134% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0825790342776 0.0662205650399 125% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.21722788351 0.162205337803 134% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0295318774978 0.0443174109184 67% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.2 13.3589403974 106% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 53.55 53.8541721854 99% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 11.0289183223 112% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.51 12.2367328918 86% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.3 8.42419426049 99% => OK
difficult_words: 74.0 63.6247240618 116% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 10.7273730684 126% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 10.498013245 118% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.2008830022 125% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
Rates: 81.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.5 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.