The professor explains three arguments opposing the points presented in the reading passage about the three solutions of maintaining Toreeya from extinction.
First, the professor argues that reestablishing Torreya in the same location is unlikely to sucess due to the fact that their microclimate are affected by climate changes of larger ecosystem which is caused by global warming. Also, wetlands are draining, consequently, cool microclimate is hardly to achieve anymore. Although, the reading passage states that Florida's microclimate is can be suitable to Torreya because it is wetter and has lower temperature, the professor repudiates mentioned explanations by presenting convincing evidences.
Second, the reading passage states that Torreya can be transform to a completely new location that is cooler, wetter and suitable. On the contrary, the professor draws attention to the previous experience of another plant species, Black Locas Tree, which developed rapidly in the new environment and killed off many of other native plants. As she claims, the consequences of plants' migration to a new place is unpredictable. Thus, she rejects this suggestion too.
Third and last, the reading passage asserts that Torreya can be preserve in research centers. This option has twofold. Scientists are easily able to protect and perform some research on it. In contrast, the professor disproves the idea due to the fact that Torreya could not resist against diseases in laboratory environment for the long term. Therefore, this idea has been reject by the professor either.
The article states that the portrait is not belong to Rembrandt the famous painter and provides three reason of support. However, the professor explains that this work is originaly painted by Rembrandt, and has been altered in about one hundered years ago by another person. She refutes each of aurthur's reasons.
First, the reading claims that there is a misconseption of detail in woman's fur wearing that a servant could not possibly afford. The professor refues this point by saying that it wasn't Rembrandt detail overlooking .She states that, after painting analysis it is revealed that the fur colour is painted over the original painting.
Second, the article posits that as Rembrandt was adept in ligh and shadow technique, the painting was in contrast to his mastery. However, the professor says that the original coloring of the painting illustrate that Rembrandt profisseincy is conceal beneath the new colour of alteration. The second artist may wanted to add value to the original masterpiece.
Third, the reading announce that the examination of the back of the painting reveals that the board is consited of different wooden parts which glued together, which is not Rembrandt painting method. Professor opposes this point by explaining the glued parts were then added to the primary painting to add to its size and value.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 45, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'belonged'.
Suggestion: belonged
...article states that the portrait is not belong to Rembrandt the famous painter and pro...
^^^^^^
Line 2, column 181, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: wasn't
...sor refues this point by saying that it wasnt Rembrandt detail overlooking .She state...
^^^^^
Line 2, column 215, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Don't put a space before the full stop
Suggestion: .
...at it wasnt Rembrandt detail overlooking .She states that, after painting analysis...
^^
Line 2, column 217, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: She
... it wasnt Rembrandt detail overlooking .She states that, after painting analysis it...
^^^
Line 3, column 243, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'concealed'.
Suggestion: concealed
...lustrate that Rembrandt profisseincy is conceal beneath the new colour of alteration. T...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, however, if, look, may, second, so, then, third, in contrast, in contrast to
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 10.4613686534 115% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 5.04856512141 40% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 7.30242825607 55% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 14.0 12.0772626932 116% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 22.412803532 94% => OK
Preposition: 29.0 30.3222958057 96% => 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: 1124.0 1373.03311258 82% => OK
No of words: 217.0 270.72406181 80% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.1797235023 5.08290768461 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.8380880478 4.04702891845 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.58725289661 2.5805825403 100% => OK
Unique words: 122.0 145.348785872 84% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.562211981567 0.540411800872 104% => OK
syllable_count: 330.3 419.366225166 79% => 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: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
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: 21.0 21.2450331126 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 48.245310653 49.2860985944 98% => OK
Chars per sentence: 112.4 110.228320801 102% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.7 21.698381199 100% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.3 7.06452816374 117% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 4.19205298013 119% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 0.0 4.45695364238 0% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.124971730164 0.272083759551 46% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.048665010574 0.0996497079465 49% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0427423089791 0.0662205650399 65% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.077196206918 0.162205337803 48% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0294704261223 0.0443174109184 66% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.8 13.3589403974 103% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 58.62 53.8541721854 109% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 11.0289183223 93% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.76 12.2367328918 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.75 8.42419426049 104% => OK
difficult_words: 56.0 63.6247240618 88% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.498013245 99% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.