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.
<span style="font-size: 19.36px;">There is a heated debate on the origin of the Vognich manuscript. The author in the reading passage gives three assumptions, while the professor, in the lecture, contradicts all these possibilities by using three specific points as supports.
First, the author asserts that the manuscript is a genuine work composed in a complex secret code, and Anthony Ascham is identified as a possible author, since these two contents are quite similar. However, the professor opposes this view by pointing out that this manuscript cannot be written by Anthony Ascham, because his ideas and plans are quite common and general, which are unlike to be composed by a secret code.
Second, the reading passage suggests that the manuscript might be a fake book in order to extract money from the rich, the professor reckons that as the people in the 16 century are easy to be fooled, there is no need to do so much work to make such a book. It is too complex.
Third, despite the claim in the reading passage that the manuscript is probably mady by Willfrid M. Voynich himself to receive an attractive offer, the professor emphasizes that the ink in or on the manuscript is at least 400 years ago. However, Willfrid M. Voynich has no assess to the special ink even though he knows what the old manuscript should be like and successfully obtains some materials.</span><br>
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, however, if, second, so, third, while, at least
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 10.4613686534 153% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 12.0772626932 58% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 14.0 22.412803532 62% => OK
Preposition: 28.0 30.3222958057 92% => 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: 1179.0 1373.03311258 86% => OK
No of words: 234.0 270.72406181 86% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.03846153846 5.08290768461 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.91114542567 4.04702891845 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.16136793268 2.5805825403 123% => OK
Unique words: 140.0 145.348785872 96% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.598290598291 0.540411800872 111% => OK
syllable_count: 353.7 419.366225166 84% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 3.25607064018 31% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.23620309051 73% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.25165562914 240% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 10.0 13.0662251656 77% => 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: 23.0 21.2450331126 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 75.4655550566 49.2860985944 153% => OK
Chars per sentence: 117.9 110.228320801 107% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.4 21.698381199 108% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.4 7.06452816374 76% => 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 : 1.0 4.45695364238 22% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.27373068433 140% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.128275507604 0.272083759551 47% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0459688514442 0.0996497079465 46% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0310558753715 0.0662205650399 47% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0726964172629 0.162205337803 45% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0320089177238 0.0443174109184 72% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.0 13.3589403974 105% => 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: 12.25 12.2367328918 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.69 8.42419426049 103% => OK
difficult_words: 58.0 63.6247240618 91% => OK
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: 81.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.5 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.