This reading and the lecture is about the memoir of Chevalier de Seingalt, who's life explained as adventurous and controversial. In the reading, the author tried to refute his claim whereas the lecturer of the lecture tried to support the claim of Chevalier de Seingalt.
First of all, the reading states that Seingalt was borrowed money from merchants and that's why he was not wealthy. The lecturer argues that he borrowed money because it took time to sell his properties. So, the lecture claim that he was not poor.
Secondly, the reading states that critics also questioned his claim about the conversation with famous writer Voltaire as it was recorded long after the conversation happened. But, the lecturer argues that Seingalt took records on a daily basis. His friends also support his claim. So, the lecturer thinks that Seingalt was telling the truth.
Finally, the reading also states that the story about escaping from the jail might not be true as the critics thought that Seingalt was freed by jailers and he had may politically powerful friends. But, the lecturer finds the proof that proves that the claim in the reading is not true. The lecturer provided evidence that the Venice government planned to repair the roof just after he escaped and other prisoners had powerful friends but they could not escape from the jail.
In conclusion, the reading tries to critic the memoir of Seingalt but the lecture successfully refutes the claim made by the reading.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 76, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: who's
...ut the memoir of Chevalier de Seingalt, whos life explained as adventurous and contr...
^^^^
Line 3, column 86, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: that's
...t was borrowed money from merchants and thats why he was not wealthy. The lecturer ar...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, if, may, second, secondly, so, whereas, in conclusion, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 10.4613686534 86% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 5.04856512141 59% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 25.0 22.412803532 112% => OK
Preposition: 25.0 30.3222958057 82% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1240.0 1373.03311258 90% => OK
No of words: 247.0 270.72406181 91% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.02024291498 5.08290768461 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.96437052324 4.04702891845 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.4548638999 2.5805825403 95% => OK
Unique words: 121.0 145.348785872 83% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.48987854251 0.540411800872 91% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 355.5 419.366225166 85% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.55342163355 90% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 51.8545987188 49.2860985944 105% => OK
Chars per sentence: 95.3846153846 110.228320801 87% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.0 21.698381199 88% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.23076923077 7.06452816374 102% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 4.33554083885 185% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.27373068433 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.183891282082 0.272083759551 68% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0810107711328 0.0996497079465 81% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0483490285787 0.0662205650399 73% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.118422138201 0.162205337803 73% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0553929487155 0.0443174109184 125% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.7 13.3589403974 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 69.11 53.8541721854 128% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.3 11.0289183223 75% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.84 12.2367328918 97% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.65 8.42419426049 91% => OK
difficult_words: 48.0 63.6247240618 75% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.2008830022 71% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 71.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 21.5 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.