TPO30 integrated writing
The reading and listening materials have a conflict of opinions about whether the burning mirror was a weapon of ancient Greeks. The passage believes that the burning mirror never served as a crucial weapon for Greek, which is contradicted by the following lecture.
For starters, the author claims that ancient Greeks could not invent such a device due to technological limitation while the professor views this issue from an opposite angle. According to her, ancient Greeks did not need to form a large sheet of cooper to make a large burning mirror . Besides, the mathematicians knew the knowledge about parabolic properties, thus, they were able to reassemble the small pieces into a parabolic mirror.
In addition, the writer argues that it takes a long period to burn the ship by mirrors. However, the speaker opposes this argument by saying that there are other materials made of the ship, such as pitch. That is, the pitch is more likely to be burned, almost in one second. In this situation, the fire would spread to the rest components of the ship even if the ship was moving .
Finally, the writer states that ancient Greeks stand a better chance to use flaming arrows. By contrast, in accordance with the writer, this opinion does not hold water. In fact, the Roman soldiers were familiar with the flaming arrows instead of burning mirrors and were ready to put out fires caused by flaming arrows, thus decreasing the effectiveness of those weapon. However, Roman soldiers could not see the burning rays of the mirror, which means it would be more effective to use a burning mirror to cause fire in unobserved places surprisingly during the battle.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 285, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Don't put a space before the full stop
Suggestion: .
...of cooper to make a large burning mirror . Besides, the mathematicians knew the kn...
^^
Line 5, column 379, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Don't put a space before the full stop
Suggestion: .
... of the ship even if the ship was moving . Finally, the writer states that anci...
^^
Line 7, column 359, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'this weapon' or 'those weapons'?
Suggestion: this weapon; those weapons
...s, thus decreasing the effectiveness of those weapon. However, Roman soldiers could not see ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
besides, finally, however, if, second, so, thus, while, in addition, in fact, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 10.4613686534 105% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 2.0 7.30242825607 27% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 8.0 12.0772626932 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 15.0 22.412803532 67% => OK
Preposition: 40.0 30.3222958057 132% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1388.0 1373.03311258 101% => OK
No of words: 280.0 270.72406181 103% => OK
Chars per words: 4.95714285714 5.08290768461 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.09062348924 4.04702891845 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.5291917732 2.5805825403 98% => OK
Unique words: 165.0 145.348785872 114% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.589285714286 0.540411800872 109% => OK
syllable_count: 419.4 419.366225166 100% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.116997792494 0% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 2.5761589404 233% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 21.2450331126 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 42.3113285151 49.2860985944 86% => OK
Chars per sentence: 106.769230769 110.228320801 97% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.5384615385 21.698381199 99% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.53846153846 7.06452816374 93% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => OK
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: 0.462168035363 0.272083759551 170% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.140966039049 0.0996497079465 141% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0786901889476 0.0662205650399 119% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.252341977795 0.162205337803 156% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0618156278966 0.0443174109184 139% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.7 13.3589403974 95% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 58.62 53.8541721854 109% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 11.0289183223 93% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.49 12.2367328918 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.63 8.42419426049 102% => OK
difficult_words: 70.0 63.6247240618 110% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.498013245 99% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 70.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 21.0 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.