Reading Passage:
Although Johannes Vermeer is famous for his masterpiece "Girl with a Pearl Earring", not much is known about who modeled for the painting. The curiosity aroused by the mystery brought about several theories about the true identity of the model.
The first candidate is Maria Vermeer who was the eldest daughter of Johannes Vermeer. Johannes Vermeer found the source of inspiration from daily lives. His artworks focused on everyday life scenes from neighborhoods in Delft as a result. This artistic style of Vermeer drove critics to formulate a theory that Vermeer's daughter may have posed for the portrait. To support the idea, one critic even commented that only a father can sketch such portraits."
Magdalena Van Ruijven, who was the only daughter of Vermeer's patron, Pieter Van Ruijven, was also proposed as a candidate. The Vermeer and Van Ruijven families were close neighbors, making it possible that the painting may have been a request for his daughter from Van Ruijven. This can be further speculated when considering the fact that the painting was given to Magdalena Van Ruijven as a wedding gift.
The last theory is the tronie theory. Tronie refers to a popular genre of the 17th century Dutch paintings that portray exaggerated facial expressions of fictional characters. This genre may have influenced the painting of Vermeer profoundly, making him focus on the representation of a imaginary figure: in this case, an anonymous girl in exotic clothing and a huge pearl in her ear. With, the balanced use of light and darkness, the painter focuses on the facial expressions and effectively depicts the delicate emotion of the girl in the painting. Such characteristic is similar to what the tronie genre keyed on.
The lecture discusses the drawbacks of the several theories about the true identity of the model in the masterpiece "Girl with a Pearl Earring" this drawback are directly contradicted the theories stated in the passage about the model of the masterpiece.
Firstly, the lecture said that the inspiration of the Johannes Vermeer does not come from daily life. The professor said that the model can be any other person living around him and not necessarily his eldest daughter. Also, the professor says that he draws 40 pieces of different women some of them are misses some are mistress, etc. and one of them is his daughter. This opposes the theory presented in the passage that Johannes Vermeer's source of inspiration is her eldest daughter.
Secondly, the lecture showed that Magdalena Van Ruijven is the one who encourages the Johannes Vermeer to upscale her. Also, the professor says that the lightness was very different at that time it consist of pride and the social class. On the other hand, the passage stated that the Vermeer and the Van Ruijven were the neighbors and the Vermeer gifted the painting to the Magdalena Van Ruijven in her wedding as a gift.
Thirdly, according to the lecture, Vermeer did not make the painting imaginatively but he made the painting with virtuality. However, the passage said the painting that portray exaggerated facial expression is made by imagination with the unknown girl having a huge pearl in her ear.
Thus we can conclude that passage contradicts the lecture in every aspect.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 199, Rule ID: IT_VBZ[1]
Message: Did you mean 'consists'?
Suggestion: consists
...ness was very different at that time it consist of pride and the social class. On the o...
^^^^^^^
Line 17, column 1, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
...rl having a huge pearl in her ear. Thus we can conclude that passage contradict...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, however, if, second, secondly, so, third, thirdly, thus, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.4613686534 96% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 5.04856512141 40% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 25.0 22.412803532 112% => OK
Preposition: 28.0 30.3222958057 92% => 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: 1301.0 1373.03311258 95% => OK
No of words: 255.0 270.72406181 94% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.10196078431 5.08290768461 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.99608801488 4.04702891845 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.65978350418 2.5805825403 103% => OK
Unique words: 129.0 145.348785872 89% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.505882352941 0.540411800872 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 399.6 419.366225166 95% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 21.2450331126 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 54.8047037722 49.2860985944 111% => OK
Chars per sentence: 108.416666667 110.228320801 98% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.25 21.698381199 98% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.41666666667 7.06452816374 119% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 4.33554083885 161% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 4.45695364238 45% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.27373068433 70% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.183585897002 0.272083759551 67% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0592095992128 0.0996497079465 59% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0751672740055 0.0662205650399 114% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0970998690293 0.162205337803 60% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.101975401759 0.0443174109184 230% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.2 13.3589403974 99% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 53.8541721854 93% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 11.0289183223 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.3 12.2367328918 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.02 8.42419426049 95% => OK
difficult_words: 54.0 63.6247240618 85% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 10.7273730684 131% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.498013245 99% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.2008830022 125% => 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.