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
The reading and the lecture are both about the method that Greeks used to defend them from the Romans' attacks. The author of the reading feels that there are three explanations that show this method is just a legendary story. The lecturer challenges the claims made by the author. She is of the opinion that these explanations are not true.
To begin with, the author argues that Greeks at that time were not technologically capable to build such this mirror as a weapon. The author mentions that for having an efficient burning mirror, Greeks had to work on a large sheet copper that they were not advanced enough to build this instrument at that moment. This specific argument is challenged by the lecturer. She claims that not only Greeks did not have to use a wide single sheet copper to build the weapon, but also they could use of dozen small sheets of copper to make their tools. Additionally, Greeks were able to assemble these small sheets to reach an efficient and parabolic shape of the mirror.
Secondly, the writer suggests that using of burning mirror to make a fire on the ships would take long times and the ships needed to be stationary. To be more specific to this point, an experiment was done and it took more than ten minutes that a woody device started to burn with the effects of sun rays. The lecturer, however, rebuts this by mentioning that the ships at that time were not built with just one material. Moreover, the ships at that ancient time had such a material called pitch. This material is very susceptible to fire and it takes only a few seconds to set on fire even the ship is moving.
Finally, the author posits that Greeks at that time had flaming arrow technique which they used to make a fire on the ships of enemies. Additionally, this method was effective at the same distance that the burning mirror method used. Consequently, Greeks did not have to use the burning mirror as a defensive mechanism. In contrast, the lecturer’s position is that despite Greeks were familiar with the flaming arrow but the burning mirror technique made them surprise their enemies. In other words, the enemies just saw mirrors and suddenly their ships set on fire, so this method was effective for Greeks and was help them to surprise their enemies.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-01-17 | Shiimaaa | 80 | view |
| 2020-01-17 | Shiimaaa | 76 | view |
| 2020-01-09 | mashghanbar | 66 | view |
| 2020-01-08 | Opak Pulup | 78 | view |
| 2020-01-03 | nusybah | 83 | view |
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Because the world is changing so quickly, people now are less happy or less satisfied with their lives than people were in the past. 66
- TPO 30 66
- Movies and television strongly influence the way people behave Do you agree or disagree Use reasons and specific examples to support your answer 82
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? It is more enjoyable to have a job where you work only three days a week for long hours than to have a job where you work five days a week for shorter hours. 66
- 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 p 66
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 227, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
... this method is just a legendary story. The lecturer challenges the claims made by ...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, consequently, finally, however, if, moreover, second, secondly, so, in contrast, in other words, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 10.4613686534 191% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 5.04856512141 40% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 20.0 12.0772626932 166% => OK
Pronoun: 44.0 22.412803532 196% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 51.0 30.3222958057 168% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1885.0 1373.03311258 137% => OK
No of words: 400.0 270.72406181 148% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.7125 5.08290768461 93% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.472135955 4.04702891845 111% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.4221258741 2.5805825403 94% => OK
Unique words: 181.0 145.348785872 125% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.4525 0.540411800872 84% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 577.8 419.366225166 138% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.55342163355 90% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => OK
Article: 12.0 8.23620309051 146% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 13.0662251656 145% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 21.2450331126 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 40.1552389271 49.2860985944 81% => OK
Chars per sentence: 99.2105263158 110.228320801 90% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.0526315789 21.698381199 97% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.36842105263 7.06452816374 90% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 4.45695364238 224% => 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: 0.466991696991 0.272083759551 172% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.145006647012 0.0996497079465 146% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0898898848497 0.0662205650399 136% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.265206596598 0.162205337803 164% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.126912079405 0.0443174109184 286% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.3 13.3589403974 85% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 67.08 53.8541721854 125% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 11.0289183223 83% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.04 12.2367328918 82% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.68 8.42419426049 91% => OK
difficult_words: 76.0 63.6247240618 119% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.498013245 99% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.2008830022 71% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
Rates: 66.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 20.0 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.