Both the reading and the listening talk about the origin of the Voynich manuscript. The former gives three explanations regarding the origin of the manuscript. The professor, on the other hand, casts doubt on the idea by saying that none of the three reasons in the text show the origin of the Voynich manuscript due to the following reasons.
First of all, both the author and the lecturer posit the name of Ascham, the sixteenth century physicist. The writer mentions that one theory shows that it is an original work exploited secret codes to illustrate scientific or magical subjects. The lecturer, in contrast, rebuts this notion by pointing out that Ascham was an ordinary physician who had no any significant idea in this regard. Accordingly, he explained common plants based on other sources which demonstrates he is unlikely to be the author of a scientific manuscript.
Second of all, both the writer and the lecture put forward whether Edward Kelley was the writer of the Voynich manuscript or not. The article asserts that it is a fake which Kelley created to make money by selling it to wealthy noble individuals at that time. The speaker, conversely, refutes this idea by explaining that although Kelley was notoriously good when it comes to this kind of jobs but it was not intended to sell to rich people. According to him, such complex work requires a lot of care and so much work making it hard for Kelley to do so because he actually created simpler ones.
Finally, both the article and the speaker put forth whether Voynich himself composed the old manuscript or not. The text avers that because Voynich was an antique book seller, he was familiar with ancient manuscripts to create a fake one and sell it for an attractive offer. The listening, however, rejects the idea by suggesting that modern methods has helped us to determine the date which these manuscripts were created. These methods show that it is used a 400 years old ink in that manuscript which is a couple of centuries before Voynich lived. Therefore, it cannot be the work of Voynich himself.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 353, Rule ID: NOW[2]
Message: Did you mean 'now' (=at this moment) instead of 'no' (negation)?
Suggestion: now
...scham was an ordinary physician who had no any significant idea in this regard. Ac...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
accordingly, actually, but, conversely, finally, first, however, if, regarding, second, so, therefore, in contrast, kind of, 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: 1.0 5.04856512141 20% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 7.30242825607 137% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 12.0772626932 141% => OK
Pronoun: 34.0 22.412803532 152% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 43.0 30.3222958057 142% => 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: 1728.0 1373.03311258 126% => OK
No of words: 357.0 270.72406181 132% => OK
Chars per words: 4.84033613445 5.08290768461 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.34677393335 4.04702891845 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.60314680616 2.5805825403 101% => OK
Unique words: 189.0 145.348785872 130% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.529411764706 0.540411800872 98% => OK
syllable_count: 528.3 419.366225166 126% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => 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: 16.0 13.0662251656 122% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 21.2450331126 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 35.2760874212 49.2860985944 72% => OK
Chars per sentence: 108.0 110.228320801 98% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.3125 21.698381199 103% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.75 7.06452816374 138% => 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: 8.0 4.27373068433 187% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.204558604068 0.272083759551 75% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0714741805818 0.0996497079465 72% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0514637460057 0.0662205650399 78% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.125440135528 0.162205337803 77% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0667603567644 0.0443174109184 151% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.5 13.3589403974 94% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 57.61 53.8541721854 107% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 11.0289183223 97% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.09 12.2367328918 91% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.97 8.42419426049 106% => OK
difficult_words: 96.0 63.6247240618 151% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.498013245 103% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
Rates: 83.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 25.0 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.