Potrait of Rembrandt
The author is in complete support of the fact that the painting Potrait of an Elderly Woman in a White Bonnet is not painted by Rembrandt whereas the speaker presents exact contradiction of this view and in fact present evidence to prove that the painting is actually done by Rembrandt. In support for her view, she presented the evidence based upon the dressing sense, light-shadow relation and use of wood panel in Rembrandt paintings.
As his/her initial point, the author points out the inconsistency dressing sense of painter which could not be the Rembrandt. In opposition, the speaker diverges from this point with an argument that actually the fur collar was not in the original painting. Instead it was added 100 years after the painting was made by the Rambrandt, to show some aristrocatic look of the lady in the potrait. These points made by the speaker place sufficient cracks to cast doubt on the Author's argument since the original painting shows same attention to details that the Rembrandt will use in his every potrait.
Next, the author attempts to prove his point declares the light shadow mismatch in the potrait; nonetheless the lecture counters this position precisely proclaiming that in orginal painting the lady in potrait was wearing light coloured cloth which illuminated light to the face, so when the fur was added in the remaking of the painting, then only it damaged the light-shadow perfection of Rembrandt. Now this evidence cast suspicion on the Author's Position since the original painting was error free and masterpiece of painting light and shadow.
Before finishing his/her argument the writer states the final argument that the painting was made on wood panel glued together which Rembrandt never used. The orator again put forward contrasting information that the glued wood panel was only used when the fur collar was added to make the painting grand and huge. However, original painting was made on the single wood panel and it also resembles the wood panel used by Rembrandt to make his self potrait.
All in all, despite the significant attempt of writer to convince the audiences that the Potrait of an Elderly Women in a White Bonnet was not the making of Rembrandt, the speaker counter the argument with valid evidences.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 259, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Instead,
...ollar was not in the original painting. Instead it was added 100 years after the painti...
^^^^^^^
Line 13, column 1, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “Before” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...ece of painting light and shadow. Before finishing his/her argument the writer s...
^^^^^^
Line 13, column 458, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... by Rembrandt to make his self potrait. All in all, despite the significant atte...
^^^^^^^
Line 17, column 112, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[2]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'woman'?
Suggestion: Woman
...udiences that the Potrait of an Elderly Women in a White Bonnet was not the making of...
^^^^^
Line 17, column 224, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...nter the argument with valid evidences.
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, however, if, look, nonetheless, so, then, whereas, in fact
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 10.4613686534 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 5.04856512141 40% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 12.0772626932 108% => OK
Pronoun: 25.0 22.412803532 112% => OK
Preposition: 56.0 30.3222958057 185% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 5.01324503311 319% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1915.0 1373.03311258 139% => OK
No of words: 377.0 270.72406181 139% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.07957559682 5.08290768461 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.4064143971 4.04702891845 109% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.57357316824 2.5805825403 100% => OK
Unique words: 174.0 145.348785872 120% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.461538461538 0.540411800872 85% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 569.7 419.366225166 136% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.23620309051 73% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 31.0 21.2450331126 146% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 78.4804912064 49.2860985944 159% => OK
Chars per sentence: 159.583333333 110.228320801 145% => OK
Words per sentence: 31.4166666667 21.698381199 145% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.16666666667 7.06452816374 87% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 4.19205298013 119% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => 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: 0.276298949519 0.272083759551 102% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.121660278542 0.0996497079465 122% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0876543436187 0.0662205650399 132% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.187154215736 0.162205337803 115% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0381818750602 0.0443174109184 86% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 18.2 13.3589403974 136% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.47 53.8541721854 90% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 11.0289183223 129% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.78 12.2367328918 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.57 8.42419426049 102% => OK
difficult_words: 81.0 63.6247240618 127% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 10.7273730684 126% => OK
gunning_fog: 14.4 10.498013245 137% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.2008830022 125% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
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.