Rembrandt is the most famous of the seventeenth-century Dutch painters. However, there are doubts whether some paintings attributed to Rembrandt were actually painted by him. One such painting is known as attributed to Rembrandt because of its style, and indeed the representation of the woman’s face is very much like that of portraits known to be by Rembrandt. But there are problems with the painting that suggest it could not be a work by Rembrandt.
First, there is something inconsistent about the way the woman in the portrait is dressed. She is wearing a white linen cap of a kind that only servants would wear-yet the coat she is wearing has a luxurious fur collar that no servant could afford. Rembrandt, who was known for his attention to the details of his subjects’ clothing, would not have been guilty of such an inconsistency.
Second, Rembrandt was a master of painting light and shadow, but in this painting these elements do not fit together. The face appears to be illuminated by light reflected onto it from below. But below the face is the dark fur collar, which would absorb light rather than reflect it. So the face should appear partially in shadow-which is not how it appears. Rembrandt would never have made such an error.
Finally, examination of the back of the painting reveals that it was painted on a panel made of several pieces of wood glued together. Although Rembrandt often painted on wood panels, no painting known to be by Rembrandt uses a panel glued together in this way from several pieces of wood.
The article and the lecture are both about Rembrandt who is the most famous of the seventeenth-century Dutch painters. The author believes that the Portrait of an Elderly Woman in a White Bonnet was not painted by Rembrandt. However, the professor casts doubt on the claims made in the article.
First of all, the author of article points out that woman in the portrait has clothes which are inconsistent and which she cannot afford. This point is challenged by the professor. She says that Rembrandt wanted to create a formal portrait, that is why he made this inconsistency.
Secondly, it is mentioned in the article that Rembrandt, as a master of painting light and shadow, made an error because they do not fit together. The lecturer rebuts this argument. She suggests that Rembrandt, when he made this portrait, realized that woman's face is eliminated and is not so realistic, so he changed lights and shadows.
Finally, the author of the article states that Rembrandt used a panel glued together, but there is no the same works. However, the professor believes that the painter tried to make his work more valuable.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 200, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... rebuts this argument. She suggests that Rembrandt, when he made this portrait, r...
^^
Line 7, column 100, Rule ID: NOW[2]
Message: Did you mean 'now' (=at this moment) instead of 'no' (negation)?
Suggestion: now
...ed a panel glued together, but there is no the same works. However, the professor ...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, however, second, secondly, so, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.4613686534 96% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 1.0 5.04856512141 20% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 12.0772626932 108% => OK
Pronoun: 22.0 22.412803532 98% => OK
Preposition: 19.0 30.3222958057 63% => OK
Nominalization: 1.0 5.01324503311 20% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 943.0 1373.03311258 69% => OK
No of words: 190.0 270.72406181 70% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.96315789474 5.08290768461 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.71268753763 4.04702891845 92% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.77078646195 2.5805825403 107% => OK
Unique words: 111.0 145.348785872 76% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.584210526316 0.540411800872 108% => OK
syllable_count: 278.1 419.366225166 66% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 0.0 2.5761589404 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 11.0 13.0662251656 84% => 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: 17.0 21.2450331126 80% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 38.292696151 49.2860985944 78% => OK
Chars per sentence: 85.7272727273 110.228320801 78% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.2727272727 21.698381199 80% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.81818181818 7.06452816374 82% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 4.33554083885 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.27373068433 94% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.218477518185 0.272083759551 80% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0814413848785 0.0996497079465 82% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0820838986167 0.0662205650399 124% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.140890912496 0.162205337803 87% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.108684820406 0.0443174109184 245% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.6 13.3589403974 79% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 62.68 53.8541721854 116% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.7 11.0289183223 79% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.19 12.2367328918 91% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.3 8.42419426049 99% => OK
difficult_words: 46.0 63.6247240618 72% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.498013245 84% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 70.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 21.0 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.