Summarize the points made in the lecture, being sure to explain how they cast doubt on the specific points made in the reading passage
The reading and lecture are both about the classical architecture such as Chinese, Japanese and so on are have similarities in term of style, elements used and many more. Yet, these all are the reflection od ancient Greece and Rome. Both the lecturer and author hold similar conception regarding to this.
First the author begins by stating that, no matter what classical architecture is it, they are formed to revive the architecture of Greece and Rome. The professor further elaborates this by mentioning that they are based on the principle of prehistoric Greece and Roman architect.
Secondly, according to the writer, classical architecture uses them merely as a source of inspiration. In addition, they study not only the way they were built but also the elements and materials used to built it. The speaker corroborates this by mentioning that, they were highly influenced by the decorative components and thus revive the ancient architecture of Greece. Furthermore, roman style of architecture were not used when it was collapsed however they were blend with the asthetic of Greece architecture.
Finally, the reading passage also notes that, although, Carolingian Renaissance was the very first attempt to use the style, unless the Italian Renaissance were built, it was not the prominent one. The speaker, on other hand, states that, they were built with the technique of ancient Greece and Rome. Moreover, although they were not the carbon copy, yet the ideas and philosophy were exactly the same.
As we can see, the author and lecturer holds similar views on classical architecture, the speaker effectively suppots the writer's viewpoint.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 470, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'blended', 'blent'.
Suggestion: blended; blent
...when it was collapsed however they were blend with the asthetic of Greece architectur...
^^^^^
Line 8, column 124, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'writers'' or 'writer's'?
Suggestion: writers'; writer's
...re, the speaker effectively suppots the writers viewpoint.
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, furthermore, however, moreover, regarding, second, secondly, so, thus, in addition, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 10.4613686534 163% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 1.0 5.04856512141 20% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 7.30242825607 192% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 12.0772626932 50% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 23.0 22.412803532 103% => OK
Preposition: 27.0 30.3222958057 89% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1397.0 1373.03311258 102% => OK
No of words: 264.0 270.72406181 98% => OK
Chars per words: 5.29166666667 5.08290768461 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.03089032464 4.04702891845 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.82438375492 2.5805825403 109% => OK
Unique words: 142.0 145.348785872 98% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.537878787879 0.540411800872 100% => OK
syllable_count: 445.5 419.366225166 106% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 3.25607064018 184% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.25165562914 240% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 37.4132527227 49.2860985944 76% => OK
Chars per sentence: 107.461538462 110.228320801 97% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.3076923077 21.698381199 94% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.07692307692 7.06452816374 128% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 4.45695364238 45% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.0786519341951 0.272083759551 29% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0316012072624 0.0996497079465 32% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0167052810409 0.0662205650399 25% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0465204025532 0.162205337803 29% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0102916839531 0.0443174109184 23% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.6 13.3589403974 102% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 42.72 53.8541721854 79% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 11.0289183223 112% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.4 12.2367328918 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.76 8.42419426049 104% => OK
difficult_words: 69.0 63.6247240618 108% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 10.7273730684 79% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 3.33333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.