Although the reading passage presents three main reasons for the validity of the fact that burning mirror, a copper surface that caused fire of Roman navy and led ancient Greek defend themselves and won the war, is a myth, the professor finds them dubious and brings up three counter reasons to refute them all.
First, the author argues that ancient Greek lack the technology to build wide and parabolic shaped sheets of copper. Conversely, the professor takes the view that there was no need for wide single sheets of copper. The small pieces of parabolic shaped of copper were enough to catch the ships on fire. Moreover, she claims that Greek mathematicians were able to make the exact tiny pieces of copper curvature.
Furthermore, the author asserts that in order to set the wooden ships on fire, they needed as long time as ten minutes for example. The professor, on the other hand, underlies the fact that experiment that the author mentioned is used exclusively for wood. However, the Roman's ship contained the materials such as seal which was made up of sticky material. In addition, this material was not only easy to catch on fire, but also could spread rapidly.
Finally, the author brings up the idea that in the presence of flaming arrows, they were less likely to use burning mirror. In contrast, the speaker dismisses this issue to the fact that flaming arrows were much more familiar with enemies while throwing some pieces of mirror-like copper sheets make enemies surprised and it was more effective way to burn their ships.
- TPO 41Question: Summarize the points made in the lecture, being sure to explain how they change the specific arguments presented in the reading passage. making sever rules for recycling of coal ash. 80
- TPO-30 - Integrated Writing Task A little over 2,200 years ago, the Roman navy attacked the Greek port city of Syracuse. According to some ancient historians, the Greeks defended themselves with an ingenious weapon called a "burning mirror": a polished co 80
- tpo32 90
- tpo31 76
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Playing game is fun only when you win. Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer. 81
Last line "while throwing
Last line "while throwing some pieces of mirror" is it throwing mirror or ray?
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, conversely, finally, first, furthermore, however, moreover, so, while, for example, in addition, in contrast, such as, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.4613686534 96% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 5.04856512141 40% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 20.0 22.412803532 89% => OK
Preposition: 32.0 30.3222958057 106% => 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: 1291.0 1373.03311258 94% => OK
No of words: 263.0 270.72406181 97% => OK
Chars per words: 4.90874524715 5.08290768461 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.02706775958 4.04702891845 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.33266785641 2.5805825403 90% => OK
Unique words: 154.0 145.348785872 106% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.585551330798 0.540411800872 108% => OK
syllable_count: 390.6 419.366225166 93% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 11.0 13.0662251656 84% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 23.0 21.2450331126 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 68.0879353641 49.2860985944 138% => OK
Chars per sentence: 117.363636364 110.228320801 106% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.9090909091 21.698381199 110% => OK
Discourse Markers: 13.3636363636 7.06452816374 189% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 1.0 4.33554083885 23% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.27373068433 70% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.328958412284 0.272083759551 121% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.113107812369 0.0996497079465 114% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0537562892762 0.0662205650399 81% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.182703961972 0.162205337803 113% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0253628759111 0.0443174109184 57% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.7 13.3589403974 103% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 56.59 53.8541721854 105% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 11.0289183223 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.49 12.2367328918 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.2 8.42419426049 97% => OK
difficult_words: 57.0 63.6247240618 90% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 10.7273730684 131% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.498013245 107% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.2008830022 125% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.