The professor and author are both talking about reign of the Roman emperor Claudius. Claudius was not acknowledged by citizen because he was aiming with physical handicaps so ancient authors have some stereotypes to his accomplishment. The lecturer refutes the opinions in the reading passage which were focusing on his good ponts. He gave two reasons to support his opinion.
First of all, the professor shows that there has been weekness to be as a leader. According to the reading material, Claudius was a innovative because he built a new harbor for Rome and made changes with new aqueducts to eliminate dirty water from the city. However, he was not good mentor for the army because he putted soldiers into danger. Soldiers followed him even they knew it was not fine. Hence, the speaker does not agree with the fact made by the writer.
Second, the author tells that the reputation Claudius has is bad because the ancient authors were well-off. The lecturer says that his wisdom related to slave problems are not reputed by people of senatorial class because slaves are accused to their violent attitudes. For example, his wife was former slave. She poisoned to Claudius and the professor refered that accident as irresponsible. Thus, he caused collopses between slaves and the society even he was eager to make better environment for slaves.
All of the reasons made in the lecture, the speaker thinks that Claudius has bad reputation by his few mistakes not because of his physical handicaps.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 131, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'an' instead of 'a' if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g. 'an article', 'an hour'
Suggestion: an
...g to the reading material, Claudius was a innovative because he built a new harbo...
^
Line 7, column 1, Rule ID: ALL_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'all the'.
Suggestion: All the
... make better environment for slaves. All of the reasons made in the lecture, the speake...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, hence, however, if, second, so, thus, well, as for, for example, talking about, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 10.4613686534 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 0.0 5.04856512141 0% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 7.30242825607 55% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 6.0 12.0772626932 50% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 24.0 22.412803532 107% => OK
Preposition: 29.0 30.3222958057 96% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1259.0 1373.03311258 92% => OK
No of words: 251.0 270.72406181 93% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.01593625498 5.08290768461 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.98032404683 4.04702891845 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.55282440249 2.5805825403 99% => OK
Unique words: 144.0 145.348785872 99% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.573705179283 0.540411800872 106% => OK
syllable_count: 393.3 419.366225166 94% => 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: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => 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: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 21.2450331126 75% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 41.5641939922 49.2860985944 84% => OK
Chars per sentence: 83.9333333333 110.228320801 76% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.7333333333 21.698381199 77% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.6 7.06452816374 93% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.27373068433 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.180692483705 0.272083759551 66% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0626548964657 0.0996497079465 63% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0381572248064 0.0662205650399 58% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.114136214118 0.162205337803 70% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0304609907336 0.0443174109184 69% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.6 13.3589403974 79% => 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: 11.54 12.2367328918 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.46 8.42419426049 100% => OK
difficult_words: 64.0 63.6247240618 101% => OK
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.