The passage and lecture are both about famous seventeenth-century Dutch painter Rembrandt, focusing in the inconsistency of one of his pieces of art. Both, the reader and author of the lecture, agree that this specific painting of Rembrandt caused many controversies because, even though, the painting was claimed to be from his own work, there were many types of clues that would indicate otherwise. The details from the painting didn’t match with the original style of the famous dutch painter.
However, the professor in the lecture explains that this piece went through a third examination and it was determined that, in fact, it was a painting from Rembrandt himself and why it generated so much controversy whether was from his authority or not.
First of all, the author of the reading points out the clothes of the lady in the painting; stating that the dress didn’t seem to be detailed enough, neither seem to be portrayed accurately in a social and economic level. It was irrational how the lady would be wearing a custom servant dress, while wearing high upper class jewelry. The professor in the lecture mentions that the painting was submitted to a restoration that affected the pigments of the original painting, creating the illusion of different type of clothes.
At the same time, the author of the reading mentions how of an expert Rembrandt was when it came to lightning and shadows, and how these ones from this piece -next to any other Rembrandt’s piece- were full of mistakes, for example the unusual backlighting. The professor of the reading complements saying that thanks to the pigment used in the restoration, the lightning and shadows were affected as well; the lady was in fact dressed with a light color cloth and was partially illuminated. If the pigment of the restoration was cleaned, it was possible to see how the shadows were realistic.
Lastly, the author of the reading comments that the lady was being painted in top of pieces of wood put together by using glue and this wasn’t a norm in Rembrandt’s art, none of his other paintings used this as a base. To end with the discussion, the professor in the reading agrees with this statement, and notes that the person who put the painting through restoration was looking forward to make the painting enlarged to grand its value. In fact, the original piece was made on a single piece of wood, the same type of wood that Rembrandt would normally use in his paintings, such as his self portrait with the hat.
In conclusion, both reader and lecturer find themselves in the common ground of not acknowledging these errors made by the Dutch painter himself; however, the reading doesn’t state how the painting went through three types of examinations to determine the origin of it and it’s through the professor in the lecture how it’s possible to give an answer to the questions this controversial painted originated.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 6, column 132, Rule ID: THESE_ONES[1]
Message: This phrase is probably grammatically incorrect. Write 'these' instead.
Suggestion: these
... came to lightning and shadows, and how these ones from this piece -next to any other Remb...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, however, if, lastly, look, so, third, well, while, for example, in conclusion, in fact, such as, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 24.0 10.4613686534 229% => Less to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 5.04856512141 59% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 7.30242825607 192% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 12.0772626932 108% => OK
Pronoun: 39.0 22.412803532 174% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 78.0 30.3222958057 257% => Less preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 8.0 5.01324503311 160% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2462.0 1373.03311258 179% => OK
No of words: 492.0 270.72406181 182% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.00406504065 5.08290768461 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.70967865282 4.04702891845 116% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.83971531652 2.5805825403 110% => OK
Unique words: 228.0 145.348785872 157% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.463414634146 0.540411800872 86% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 731.7 419.366225166 174% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 16.0 8.23620309051 194% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.25165562914 240% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 35.0 21.2450331126 165% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 80.5032639724 49.2860985944 163% => OK
Chars per sentence: 175.857142857 110.228320801 160% => OK
Words per sentence: 35.1428571429 21.698381199 162% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.28571428571 7.06452816374 117% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 4.09492273731 147% => Less paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 4.33554083885 208% => Less positive sentences wanted.
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: 0.215342609119 0.272083759551 79% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0897780525482 0.0996497079465 90% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0612983993757 0.0662205650399 93% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.126877971779 0.162205337803 78% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0779548678273 0.0443174109184 176% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 19.7 13.3589403974 147% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 44.41 53.8541721854 82% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.8 11.0289183223 143% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.31 12.2367328918 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.65 8.42419426049 103% => OK
difficult_words: 102.0 63.6247240618 160% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 10.7273730684 131% => OK
gunning_fog: 16.0 10.498013245 152% => OK
text_standard: 16.0 11.2008830022 143% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
Maximum four paragraphs wanted.
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.