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

Reading and lecture discusses about whether the theory of an inguenius weapon called burning mirror used by Greek to cause fire on Roman ship is true or false. Reading suggests that theory was myth, while professor thinks that explanation in reading is not cogent.

First, reading points out that ancient Greeks were not very intelligent to determine the method to focus sunlight on ship to cause fire. Furthermore, it also adds that large copper sheets were not invented at that time to create this weapon. The professor casts doubt on the statement made in lecture. She says that large copper sheet might not be created from single sheet, but Greeks might have arranged dozens of small sheets to form parabolic shape to reflect sunlight. In addition, she also points out that Greeks were clever to perform fine task for creating huge copper sheet.

Second, reading argues that Roman ship must be steady for ten minutes in order to catch fire by burning mirror. However, professor challenges this point. She thinks that burning mirror can create fire in ship quickly due to a waterproof material called pinch glued on the surface of wooden ship. In addition, she brings out the fact that all these procedures can happen when ship is moving.

Thirdly, reading states there was no valid reason for Greeks to make burning mirror, because they were expert in shooting burning arrow to destroy enemies from far distance. In contrast, professor thinks that attacking soldiers can easily spot these burning arrows, so they are not effective weapons. Furthermore, professor adds that burning mirrors are invisible, thus they can set ship on fire without even noticing by anyone. Hence, professor successfully challenged statements made in reading.

Votes
Average: 7.3 (1 vote)
Essay Categories
Essays by the user:

Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, furthermore, hence, however, second, so, third, thirdly, thus, while, in addition, 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: 7.0 5.04856512141 139% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 7.30242825607 41% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 13.0 12.0772626932 108% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 22.412803532 107% => OK
Preposition: 40.0 30.3222958057 132% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1465.0 1373.03311258 107% => OK
No of words: 285.0 270.72406181 105% => OK
Chars per words: 5.14035087719 5.08290768461 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.10876417139 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.34352345525 2.5805825403 91% => OK
Unique words: 169.0 145.348785872 116% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.59298245614 0.540411800872 110% => OK
syllable_count: 430.2 419.366225166 103% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK

A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => OK
Article: 1.0 8.23620309051 12% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK

Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 37.7480536658 49.2860985944 77% => OK
Chars per sentence: 97.6666666667 110.228320801 89% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.0 21.698381199 88% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.46666666667 7.06452816374 106% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 4.45695364238 224% => Less negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.355895214554 0.272083759551 131% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.11580582575 0.0996497079465 116% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0963111076312 0.0662205650399 145% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.213383634627 0.162205337803 132% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0213091952228 0.0443174109184 48% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.3 13.3589403974 92% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 60.65 53.8541721854 113% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 11.0289183223 86% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.53 12.2367328918 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.18 8.42419426049 97% => OK
difficult_words: 65.0 63.6247240618 102% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 10.7273730684 70% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => OK
What are above readability scores?

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

Rates: 73.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.0 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.