based on the reading and the audio can show the evidence given to support the painting art of James McNeil Whistler
Both the reading and the audio talk about the life story of James McNeil Whistler who was best known for his most important art of American painting. In the reading, the writer mentions that Whistler was a real painter whose works is kept in the museum while the speaker in the lecturer rebut this because there was no clear evidence.
To begin with, the writer believes that James Whistler this his own work of painting. However, the speaker in the lecture believes that his friend is the one who collected some painting that they termed as his while there is no proof for this.
Secondly, the writer speaks of a painting of a woman who had the same painting as that of the symphony in white that resembles that look like that of Whistler. The speaker disagrees with this because he found out at that time, there were many people who did the same kind of painting. Thus from that, he claims that the painting could not be necessary for Whistler since there is no evidence.
Thirdly, the writer states that there was no signature in Whistler painting because he had a butterfly for his notification. In the lecture, the speaker disagrees the idea that the painting belongs to Whistler this is because, instead of having a butterfly in the upper left side, there butterfly was actually place in the bottom right side. Thus disqualifying the painting from belonging to Whistler because he had his butterfly at the upper life side of the painting.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 57, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'these'?
Suggestion: these
...the writer believes that James Whistler this his own work of painting. However, the ...
^^^^
Line 3, column 285, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
...ople who did the same kind of painting. Thus from that, he claims that the painting ...
^^^^
Line 4, column 247, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ler this is because, instead of having a butterfly in the upper left side, there ...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, however, if, look, second, secondly, so, third, thirdly, thus, while, kind of, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 10.4613686534 115% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 1.0 5.04856512141 20% => OK
Conjunction : 1.0 7.30242825607 14% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 18.0 12.0772626932 149% => OK
Pronoun: 29.0 22.412803532 129% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 32.0 30.3222958057 106% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 5.01324503311 60% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1194.0 1373.03311258 87% => OK
No of words: 254.0 270.72406181 94% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.70078740157 5.08290768461 92% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.99216450694 4.04702891845 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.37401248351 2.5805825403 92% => OK
Unique words: 119.0 145.348785872 82% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.468503937008 0.540411800872 87% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 360.0 419.366225166 86% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.55342163355 90% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 3.25607064018 31% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => 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: 25.0 21.2450331126 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 36.4446155145 49.2860985944 74% => OK
Chars per sentence: 119.4 110.228320801 108% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.4 21.698381199 117% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.7 7.06452816374 151% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.27373068433 47% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.165904194248 0.272083759551 61% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0787630470125 0.0996497079465 79% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0585787606242 0.0662205650399 88% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.10750924248 0.162205337803 66% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0350611133227 0.0443174109184 79% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.4 13.3589403974 100% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 63.02 53.8541721854 117% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 11.0289183223 97% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.28 12.2367328918 84% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 6.87 8.42419426049 82% => OK
difficult_words: 32.0 63.6247240618 50% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 10.7273730684 121% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 10.498013245 114% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.2008830022 116% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 73.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.0 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.