In this set of materials, the author of the reading passage expresses three doubts of the painting, named Portrait of an Elderly Woman in a White Bonnet, could not be a work by Rembrandt. However, the professor thinks that the author's hypotheses contain some defects.
In this set of materials, the author of the reading passage expresses three doubts of the painting, named Portrait of an Elderly Woman in a White Bonnet, could not be a work by Rembrandt. However, the professor thinks that the author's hypotheses contain some defects.
First of all, the author states that there is something inconsisten about the way he woman in the portrait is dressed. On the contrary, the professor indicates that according to the x-ray examination, the luxurious fur collar was not original in the paint, it was over top. Furthermore, the fur collar was painted after 100 year when paint was done. The reason the fur collar was added is that make the painting more valuable.
In addition, the author claims that Rembrandt was a master of painting light and shadow, but in this painting these elements do not fit together. However, the professor asserts that if added fur collar was removed, the painting showed light collar. Hence, the light fur collar would reflect the light to illminate the face.
Finally, the author raises the point the back of the painting reveals that it was painted on a panel made of several pieces of wood glued together. On the other hand, the professor refutes the author's idea by saying that when someone added the fur collar, he enlarged the painting as well. He wanted the painting looked more grand and valuable. The original of painting is peice of wood. Furthermore, researchers observed that the painting used the same tree as another self-portrait painting of Rembrandt .
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 194, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...e other hand, the professor refutes the authors idea by saying that when someone added ...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 506, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ther self-portrait painting of Rembrandt .
^^
Line 7, column 507, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Don't put a space before the full stop
Suggestion: .
...her self-portrait painting of Rembrandt .
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, furthermore, hence, however, if, look, so, well, in addition, first of all, on the contrary, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 10.4613686534 124% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 5.04856512141 40% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 7.30242825607 41% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 17.0 22.412803532 76% => OK
Preposition: 30.0 30.3222958057 99% => OK
Nominalization: 2.0 5.01324503311 40% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1280.0 1373.03311258 93% => OK
No of words: 258.0 270.72406181 95% => OK
Chars per words: 4.96124031008 5.08290768461 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.00778971557 4.04702891845 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.54244685611 2.5805825403 99% => OK
Unique words: 134.0 145.348785872 92% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.519379844961 0.540411800872 96% => OK
syllable_count: 377.1 419.366225166 90% => 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: 14.0 8.23620309051 170% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 41.4019618977 49.2860985944 84% => OK
Chars per sentence: 91.4285714286 110.228320801 83% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.4285714286 21.698381199 85% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.35714285714 7.06452816374 132% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.27373068433 140% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.261704188021 0.272083759551 96% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.112683719252 0.0996497079465 113% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.206995513705 0.0662205650399 313% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.275928050179 0.162205337803 170% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.36487366247 0.0443174109184 823% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.1 13.3589403974 83% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 61.67 53.8541721854 115% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 11.0289183223 83% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.49 12.2367328918 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.83 8.42419426049 93% => OK
difficult_words: 54.0 63.6247240618 85% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => 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.