The lecture and the passage both argue over the topic of whether the woman’s portrait was painted by Rembrandt, a famous painter who lived in the seventeenth century. The passage claims that albeit the face of the women resembles his works, it is dubious that the portrait belongs to him. That being said, the lecturer provides several ideas to repudiate this claim.
Initially, the author says that the discrepancy between the cap and the coat which woman is wearing is an evident clue, owing to the fact that Rembrandt always paid too much attention to the details. However, the lecturer explains that a recent investigation has been done by X-Ray, which shows that the fur collar was added to the original painting to increase its worth by disclosing an aristocratic woman.
Second, rembrandt was an expert in painting light and shadow; with this in mind, the writer proclaims that the face must be in shadow because the dark fur collar absorbs the light. Thus the portrait is not related to rembrandt. Yet again, the speaker underscores that as it has been explained before, the fur collar was painted a hundred years later after the portrait had been made.
The final point of contention between the reading and listening passages is that the portrait was painted on a panel with several pieces of wood which is in contradict with previous works of Rembrandt. The author thinks that if it was one of his portraits, it should be painted on one piece of wood. On the other hand, the speaker explains that the researchers found the extra pieces of woods glued to a single piece of wood when the painting had been enlarged to increase its price and value. Moreover, the single piece of wood is of the same tree used by Rembrandt.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 182, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
... the dark fur collar absorbs the light. Thus the portrait is not related to rembrand...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
however, if, moreover, second, so, thus, as to, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 10.4613686534 191% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 5.04856512141 40% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 12.0772626932 141% => OK
Pronoun: 23.0 22.412803532 103% => OK
Preposition: 40.0 30.3222958057 132% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 5.01324503311 60% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1444.0 1373.03311258 105% => OK
No of words: 301.0 270.72406181 111% => OK
Chars per words: 4.79734219269 5.08290768461 94% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.16525528304 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.46523716694 2.5805825403 96% => OK
Unique words: 157.0 145.348785872 108% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.521594684385 0.540411800872 97% => OK
syllable_count: 420.3 419.366225166 100% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.55342163355 90% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 13.0 8.23620309051 158% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 21.2450331126 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 55.3661423816 49.2860985944 112% => OK
Chars per sentence: 120.333333333 110.228320801 109% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.0833333333 21.698381199 116% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.41666666667 7.06452816374 77% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 4.33554083885 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 4.45695364238 67% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.27373068433 164% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0 0.272083759551 0% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0 0.0996497079465 0% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0662205650399 0% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0 0.162205337803 0% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0443174109184 0% => 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: 13.7 13.3589403974 103% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 63.02 53.8541721854 117% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 11.0289183223 97% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.86 12.2367328918 89% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.18 8.42419426049 97% => OK
difficult_words: 63.0 63.6247240618 99% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 10.498013245 114% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => 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.