Summarize the points made in the lecture, being sure to explain how they cast doubt0 or supports 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 of 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 even though uses them merely as a source of inspiration, 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. Furthermore, even though, roman style of architecture were collapsed, Eastern empire used their styles distinctly in their buildings.
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 supports the writer's viewpoint.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 124, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'writers'' or 'writer's'?
Suggestion: writers'; writer's
...e, the speaker effectively supports the writers viewpoint.
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, furthermore, moreover, regarding, second, secondly, so, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 10.4613686534 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 1.0 5.04856512141 20% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 7.30242825607 178% => OK
Relative clauses : 5.0 12.0772626932 41% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 23.0 22.412803532 103% => OK
Preposition: 25.0 30.3222958057 82% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1355.0 1373.03311258 99% => OK
No of words: 252.0 270.72406181 93% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.37698412698 5.08290768461 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.98428260373 4.04702891845 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.804954921 2.5805825403 109% => OK
Unique words: 142.0 145.348785872 98% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.563492063492 0.540411800872 104% => OK
syllable_count: 424.8 419.366225166 101% => 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: 4.0 1.25165562914 320% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 21.2450331126 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 44.3379540199 49.2860985944 90% => OK
Chars per sentence: 112.916666667 110.228320801 102% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.0 21.698381199 97% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.5 7.06452816374 106% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => 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: 0.0819724953094 0.272083759551 30% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0331234705481 0.0996497079465 33% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0176374651996 0.0662205650399 27% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.049756856348 0.162205337803 31% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.00936966513171 0.0443174109184 21% => 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: 14.4 13.3589403974 108% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.7 53.8541721854 77% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 11.0289183223 115% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.92 12.2367328918 114% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.13 8.42419426049 108% => OK
difficult_words: 71.0 63.6247240618 112% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 10.7273730684 79% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.498013245 99% => 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.