using burning mirrors by ancient Greeks
The reading and the lecture both deal with using burning mirror as a weapon by ancient Greeks. The author of the reading believes that it is not real and it would be a myth story. However, the lecturer casts doubt on the claims made by the author. He thinks that these ideas are not convincing.
First of all, the author points out that ancient Greeks do not have technological advancement to produce this weapon. It is mentioned that for firing ships they had to use several wide mirrors; on the other hand, at that time there was no copper. Conversely, this point is challenged by the lecturer. She says that ancient Greeks considered single ship as a target and they used many small mirrors. Furthermore, she argues that there was enough copper for this goal.
Secondly, the author contends that Greeks had to spend a long time for firing a ship by burning mirrors. The article notes that researchers for firing a wood at 30 meters distances spent 10 minutes. The lecturer rebuts this argument. She suggests that the experience which is mentioned in the reading would be just about wood; however, ancient Greeks utilized burning mirrors for firing other materials. She elaborates on this by a mention that pitch was a sticky flammable material and they could fire it quickly. In fact, firing pitches, ships are burned.
Finally, the author states that there is no similarity between this weapon and other current defense equipment of Greeks. The article establishes that ancient Greeks employed flaming arrows for shooting and burning mirrors which had the same application, and they could use them for analogous distances. On the other hand, they do not need burning mirrors. The lecturer, on the other hand, posits that Roman soldiers were familiar with flaming arrows, and they could see them. She puts forth the idea that applying burning mirrors was more effective and surprising because Roman soldiers could see mirrors without awareness of firing.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2021-07-04 | talelaldabous | 60 | view |
| 2017-09-17 | fereshteh86 | 60 | view |
| 2017-09-17 | fereshteh86 | 60 | view |
| 2017-09-17 | fereshteh86 | 60 | view |
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, conversely, finally, first, furthermore, however, second, secondly, so, in fact, first of all, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 10.4613686534 134% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 5.04856512141 139% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 12.0772626932 141% => OK
Pronoun: 40.0 22.412803532 178% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 27.0 30.3222958057 89% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1643.0 1373.03311258 120% => OK
No of words: 328.0 270.72406181 121% => OK
Chars per words: 5.00914634146 5.08290768461 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.25567506705 4.04702891845 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.42225753657 2.5805825403 94% => OK
Unique words: 168.0 145.348785872 116% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.512195121951 0.540411800872 95% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 477.9 419.366225166 114% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 3.25607064018 276% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 13.0662251656 153% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 21.2450331126 75% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 41.2478787333 49.2860985944 84% => OK
Chars per sentence: 82.15 110.228320801 75% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.4 21.698381199 76% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.85 7.06452816374 83% => 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 : 14.0 4.45695364238 314% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.27373068433 70% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.326863663488 0.272083759551 120% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0922809809599 0.0996497079465 93% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.12412203889 0.0662205650399 187% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.205288373785 0.162205337803 127% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.039729923675 0.0443174109184 90% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.4 13.3589403974 78% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 63.7 53.8541721854 118% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.4 11.0289183223 76% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.48 12.2367328918 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.94 8.42419426049 94% => OK
difficult_words: 73.0 63.6247240618 115% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 10.498013245 80% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.2008830022 71% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
Rates: 60.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 18.0 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.