The article states that the Claudius was a great leader because of his innovative, fair and wise in all Roman history but some ancient authors were biased against him. The professor talks about his weakness and he refutes the author's opinion by providing few supporting reasons.
The reading states that the Claudius won the island of Britain and incorporated it into the Roman Empire. He worked for the rights of slave people and expanded Roman citizenship to new people. The author says that he was a good ruler with a strong judgmental skill. However, the professor refutes this claim by saying that he was judgmental without listening to both the sides. He was a violent gamer and destructed the ingenious people. He deserves to be a dangerous and terrible president by paying of army and people emulated his behavior.
The article says that the Claudius should be praised because he offered a political opportunity to other people like saves, women etc. The professor opposes this claim by explaining that the Claudius encouraged people for corruption and bribery. He was biased against former slave people. He created a disaster emperor and some kind of blame he deserves.
In conclusion, the professor effectively cast doubt on all the claims and theories presented in the reading.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 227, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...s about his weakness and he refutes the authors opinion by providing few supporting rea...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...by providing few supporting reasons. The reading states that the Claudius won th...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, however, so, in conclusion, kind of
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 10.4613686534 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 1.0 5.04856512141 20% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 7.30242825607 151% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 12.0772626932 50% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 23.0 22.412803532 103% => OK
Preposition: 24.0 30.3222958057 79% => OK
Nominalization: 1.0 5.01324503311 20% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1085.0 1373.03311258 79% => OK
No of words: 213.0 270.72406181 79% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.09389671362 5.08290768461 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.82027741392 4.04702891845 94% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.62141732308 2.5805825403 102% => OK
Unique words: 118.0 145.348785872 81% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.553990610329 0.540411800872 103% => OK
syllable_count: 333.0 419.366225166 79% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 21.2450331126 75% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 31.9433670458 49.2860985944 65% => OK
Chars per sentence: 83.4615384615 110.228320801 76% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.3846153846 21.698381199 76% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.07692307692 7.06452816374 44% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 4.33554083885 161% => 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: 0.13681563143 0.272083759551 50% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.051784838282 0.0996497079465 52% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0541815768662 0.0662205650399 82% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0878219330838 0.162205337803 54% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0558726902201 0.0443174109184 126% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.7 13.3589403974 80% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 55.24 53.8541721854 103% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 11.0289183223 86% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.95 12.2367328918 98% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.36 8.42419426049 99% => OK
difficult_words: 53.0 63.6247240618 83% => More difficult words wanted.
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?
---------------------
Rates: 75.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.5 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.