summarize the points made in the lecture, being sure to explain how they challenge the points that who wrote the Voynich manuscript mentioned in the reading passage
In the reading passage, the author discusses several theories that have been proposed to explain the origin of the Voynich manuscript, while the lecture claims that what the passage state in not convincing and disputes those ideas presented in the passage with several proofs.
Firstly, according to the reading passage, it is suggested that the manuscript may be writen by Anthony Ascham, a sixteenth-century physician and botanist, since many plant illustrations in the Voynich manuscript are quite similar to those in Ascham's book on medical plants. In contrast, the professor argues in the lecture that the book writen by Ascham contains barely original idea. The author descriputes some common plants as well as other well-known materials. Therefore, it is unlike that Ascham could write the script with a complex secret code.
In addition, the statement in the reading material indicates that the manuscript may be created by Edward Kelly as a fake magical book so that he could sell to a wealthy noble for money. On the contrary, the professor points out the citizens in 1700 century were simple and easy to be cheated. It was unnecessary for anyone to fabricate such sophisticated work and devote so much endeavors. Hence, neither was the Edward the writer.
Finally, the author of the reading claims that the manuscript is actually a modern fake created by Wilfrid M. Voynich who ia an antique dealer because he had the knowledge of different kinds of manuscripts and could duplicate a fake one. However, the speaker argues that the modern scientific method shows both vellum pages and ink could be traced back to 400 years ago. Even if the antique dealer could find out some vellum pages, where could he get the same-age ink? Thus, the dealer could not be the writer either.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 375, Rule ID: MUCH_COUNTABLE[1]
Message: Use 'many' with countable nouns.
Suggestion: many
...e such sophisticated work and devote so much endeavors. Hence, neither was the Edwar...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, finally, first, firstly, hence, however, if, may, so, therefore, thus, well, while, in addition, in contrast, as well as, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 10.4613686534 124% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 5.04856512141 178% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 17.0 22.412803532 76% => OK
Preposition: 32.0 30.3222958057 106% => 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: 1491.0 1373.03311258 109% => OK
No of words: 297.0 270.72406181 110% => OK
Chars per words: 5.0202020202 5.08290768461 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.15134772569 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.62979560343 2.5805825403 102% => OK
Unique words: 168.0 145.348785872 116% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.565656565657 0.540411800872 105% => OK
syllable_count: 459.9 419.366225166 110% => 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: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.25165562914 240% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 2.5761589404 233% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 21.2450331126 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 69.5654148178 49.2860985944 141% => OK
Chars per sentence: 106.5 110.228320801 97% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.2142857143 21.698381199 98% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.5 7.06452816374 149% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.27373068433 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.183611906504 0.272083759551 67% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0529212226395 0.0996497079465 53% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0509936552124 0.0662205650399 77% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.106950887543 0.162205337803 66% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0332871966975 0.0443174109184 75% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.8 13.3589403974 96% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 58.62 53.8541721854 109% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 11.0289183223 93% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.84 12.2367328918 97% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.09 8.42419426049 108% => OK
difficult_words: 83.0 63.6247240618 130% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 17.5 10.7273730684 163% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.498013245 99% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.0 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.