Writing and lecture are both about the existence of an alleged weapon, the burning mirror, that was used by Greeks to defend from Romans. On the one side, the writer argues that is unrealistic to believe that such a weapon existed. On the other hand, the lecturer casts doubts on the claims made by the writer, saying that his evidence is somewhat inexact when compared to real facts.
First, it was not necessary for Greeks to have an extremely developed technology in order to build such a weapon. This is because it can be made with another technique, so instead using a single sheet of copper, they used numerous small flat pieces, and thus they shaped it as a parabolic curvature. This is a strong counter-point that contradicts the passage.
Second, the experiment did not take into account all the possibilities to set a ship on fire. According to the paragraph, they tried to flame only the wood. However, the lecturer states that Roman ships had in their structure a substance called pitch, which was inflammable. Moreover, it was used to stick the wood, and therefore a fire would have spread quite quickly, even in a few seconds. This is another argument that confutes the theory.
Third, Romans were aware about the main weapon utilized by Greeks, flaming arrows. The writer affirms that there was no need for Greeks to build another weapon which was similar to the existent one. Conversely, the speaker gainsays this, by arguing that a this mirror represented the surprised element of the battle. Enemies knew how burning arrows worked, so they were prepared to put off the fire. But when they saw the mirror they could not assume what its purpose was, and consequently did not act against it. Therefore this idea cannot be supported as well. To summarize, the writer and the lecturer seem to be in total disagreement regarding this topic.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 255, Rule ID: DT_DT[2]
Message: Maybe you need to remove the second determiner so that only 'a' or 'this' is left.
Suggestion: a; this
... speaker gainsays this, by arguing that a this mirror represented the surprised elemen...
^^^^^^
Line 7, column 515, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Therefore,
...nd consequently did not act against it. Therefore this idea cannot be supported as well. ...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, consequently, conversely, first, however, moreover, regarding, second, so, therefore, third, thus, well, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 10.4613686534 172% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 12.0772626932 108% => OK
Pronoun: 30.0 22.412803532 134% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 37.0 30.3222958057 122% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 5.01324503311 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1544.0 1373.03311258 112% => OK
No of words: 318.0 270.72406181 117% => OK
Chars per words: 4.85534591195 5.08290768461 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.22286093782 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.5112460159 2.5805825403 97% => OK
Unique words: 192.0 145.348785872 132% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.603773584906 0.540411800872 112% => OK
syllable_count: 476.1 419.366225166 114% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 3.25607064018 246% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 4.0 1.51434878587 264% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 13.0662251656 138% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 21.2450331126 80% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 34.7059962087 49.2860985944 70% => OK
Chars per sentence: 85.7777777778 110.228320801 78% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.6666666667 21.698381199 81% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.05555555556 7.06452816374 100% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 4.45695364238 247% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.27373068433 94% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.300426912567 0.272083759551 110% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0819596083567 0.0996497079465 82% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0710837939312 0.0662205650399 107% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.1687636798 0.162205337803 104% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0152120480081 0.0443174109184 34% => 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: 10.3 13.3589403974 77% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 62.68 53.8541721854 116% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.7 11.0289183223 79% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.61 12.2367328918 87% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.55 8.42419426049 101% => OK
difficult_words: 82.0 63.6247240618 129% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.498013245 84% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => 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.