In 1912 a bookseller named Wilfrid M. Voynich acquired a beautifully illustrated handwritten book (manuscript) written on vellum (vellum is a material that was used for writing before the introduction of paper). The "Voynich manuscript," as it became known, resembles manuscripts written in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. However, it is written in a completely unknown script. To date, no one has been able to decode the script and understand the book's content. Several theories have been proposed to explain the origin of the Voynich manuscript. One theory is that the manuscript is a genuine work on some scientific or magical subject composed in a complex secret code. Anthony Ascham, a sixteenth-century physician and botanist, has been identified as a possible author, since many plant illustrations in the Voynich manuscript are quite similar to those in Ascham's book on medicinal plants, A Little Herbal, published in 1550. According to some other theories, the manuscript is really a fake and its text has no real meaning. For example, it has been proposed the manuscript was created by Edward Kelley, a sixteenth century personality who extracted money from nobles across Europe by pretending to have magical powers. Kelley may have created the manuscript as a fake magical book to sell to a wealthy noble. He used a made-up alphabet in a completely random order. It looks like a book of magical secrets, but there is no meaningful underlying text. Another theory is that the manuscript is actually a modern fake created by Wilfrid M. Voynich himself. As an antique book dealer, Voynich certainly had the knowledge of what old manuscripts should look like and could have created a fake one. Perhaps Voynich's plan was to sell the fake as a mysterious old book if he received an attractive offer.
The reading passage asserts that a bookseller announced that he has a book named voynich manuscript is a book written in sixteenth centuries. The lecturer, however, challenges this idea, and provides three main reasons to refute it.
First of all, the author argues that because many Botanics shown in the voynich book are alike to plants in ascham's book, therefore, Anthony ascham is the writer of the manuscript. Conversely, the speaker brings up the idea that the Arschom's book is an ordinary book with no original idea, and the picture of common plants are represented in it, and they are borrowed from a well-known resource. As a result, the ascham could not be the writer of the voynich manuscript.
Secondly, the writer of the passage claims that the manuscript actually is a fake, and no meaning can be understood from its text. On the contrast, the lecturer underlines the fact that since the book was written in a formidable context in the fifteen century, and people of that time were not hard to be manipulated, there was no need that the writer to take that much care to fake it. If Kelley wanted to gain money only, he could write it in a more simpler way.
Finally, it is stated in the passage that wilfrid has faked the voynich manuscript because he is good at identifying old materials. On the other hand, the speaker dismisses this issue due to the fact that although wilfrid voynich was an antique dealer, the modern method proved that the material is old. Moreover, maybe he was able to provide the old vellum, he could not access the old ink.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 13, column 448, Rule ID: MOST_COMPARATIVE[2]
Message: Use only 'simpler' (without 'more') when you use the comparative.
Suggestion: simpler
...gain money only, he could write it in a more simpler way. Finally, it is stated in the pas...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, conversely, finally, first, however, if, may, moreover, second, secondly, so, therefore, well, as a result, first of all, 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 : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 26.0 22.412803532 116% => OK
Preposition: 30.0 30.3222958057 99% => OK
Nominalization: 0.0 5.01324503311 0% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1313.0 1373.03311258 96% => OK
No of words: 275.0 270.72406181 102% => OK
Chars per words: 4.77454545455 5.08290768461 94% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.07223819929 4.04702891845 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.51699414066 2.5805825403 98% => OK
Unique words: 147.0 145.348785872 101% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.534545454545 0.540411800872 99% => OK
syllable_count: 399.6 419.366225166 95% => 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
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 5.0 1.51434878587 330% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 11.0 13.0662251656 84% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 25.0 21.2450331126 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 56.463108705 49.2860985944 115% => OK
Chars per sentence: 119.363636364 110.228320801 108% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.0 21.698381199 115% => OK
Discourse Markers: 13.5454545455 7.06452816374 192% => 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 : 3.0 4.45695364238 67% => OK
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: 0.234478836406 0.272083759551 86% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0920608238185 0.0996497079465 92% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0683991957151 0.0662205650399 103% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.140046265213 0.162205337803 86% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0366715220645 0.0443174109184 83% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.5 13.3589403974 101% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 54.56 53.8541721854 101% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 11.0289183223 108% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.68 12.2367328918 87% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.72 8.42419426049 104% => OK
difficult_words: 67.0 63.6247240618 105% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 10.7273730684 126% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 10.498013245 114% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.2008830022 125% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 85.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 25.5 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.