The reading and the lecture are both about the probability of using particular device, called burning mirror, in the war between Roman and Greece. The author of the reading believes that Greek’s army uses the mentioned tool to defend their port while the lecturer casts doubt the claims made in the article for the following reasons.
First of all, the author contends, ancient Greeks did not have enough expertise to build this weapon. It is mentioned that the mirror must have been large enough and the technology in that time was so weak in order to make both curvature and long mirror focusing light to its purpose. This point is challenged by the lecturer. She thinks that the mentioned mirror was produced by a large number of small mirrors; consequently, the Greeks army gathered them in regard to establishing the big
one.
Secondly, the author points out, burning the big ship was so time-consuming and the ship could not have burned in a short time. The woman on the lecture refutes this argument. She says that the other important material existed in the ingredients of ship's component in order to distribute the flame to a whole body of the ship; subsequently, this sticky material burned the ship so quickly.
Eventually, the author of the reading states that, in that time, arrow flames were the most important tools in relation to attacking and the severity of its destruction was the same as burning mirror. Thus, Greeks army did not need the mirror to fight. The lecturer, on the other hand, posits the power of burning mirror was more than the arrow flame, for this reason they were being used during the war.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 381, Rule ID: LARGE_NUMBER_OF[1]
Message: Specify a number, remove phrase, or simply use 'many' or 'numerous'
Suggestion: many; numerous
...at the mentioned mirror was produced by a large number of small mirrors; consequently, the Greeks...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 491, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...d them in regard to establishing the big one. Secondly, the author points out,...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, consequently, first, second, secondly, so, thus, while, first of all, in regard to, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 10.4613686534 115% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 5.04856512141 59% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 12.0772626932 58% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 20.0 22.412803532 89% => OK
Preposition: 35.0 30.3222958057 115% => 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: 1365.0 1373.03311258 99% => OK
No of words: 281.0 270.72406181 104% => OK
Chars per words: 4.85765124555 5.08290768461 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.09427095027 4.04702891845 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.46746794709 2.5805825403 96% => OK
Unique words: 153.0 145.348785872 105% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.544483985765 0.540411800872 101% => OK
syllable_count: 412.2 419.366225166 98% => 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: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 21.2450331126 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 59.2396263774 49.2860985944 120% => OK
Chars per sentence: 113.75 110.228320801 103% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.4166666667 21.698381199 108% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.83333333333 7.06452816374 125% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 4.33554083885 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 4.45695364238 202% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.27373068433 23% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.357286189493 0.272083759551 131% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.126876504722 0.0996497079465 127% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0744284090912 0.0662205650399 112% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.208851404109 0.162205337803 129% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0583893396576 0.0443174109184 132% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.2 13.3589403974 99% => 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: 11.2 12.2367328918 92% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.81 8.42419426049 93% => OK
difficult_words: 54.0 63.6247240618 85% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 10.7273730684 126% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.498013245 107% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.2008830022 125% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 78.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.5 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.