tp03 the truth of the painting of Rembrandt
The lecture apparently refutes the point illustrated in the reading material. According to the professor, it is true that the painting is the work of Rembrandt, and the arguments made in the reading are not convincing. On the contrary, the reading contends an opposite stands that the painting of the woman’s face provided several problems and shows that it was not the work of Rembrandt.
The first point the professor uses to cast doubt on the reading is the collar was added to it to increase the value of the work by others so that that the present version of the work is not the original painting, which differs from the statement in the reading is that an artist who pays attention to the details of his painting like Rembrandt would not make such error of painting the woman dressed in a linen cap like a servant, yet added a luxurious fur collar that a servant was unable to afford.
Another evidence the speaker adopts to contradict the passage is that the original painting will make more sense of the light since the light color cloth would reflect and illuminate lights, which means that the art has no problems. However, the reading states that a master of light and shadow would never make such mistakes of lights that cannot fit together with the model’s face and clothes.
In conclusion, the point made in the lecture contrasts with what is presented in the reading. As the professor claims, the panels were glued on the side of the original painting by someone to make the art grande, moreover, specialists have estimated the wood of the original panel and matched the wood with the same tree with another Rembrandt’s art of self-portrait with a hat, whereas the reading material holds that experts find that the painting was glued with several panels, and there are no other Rembrandt’s paintings were using glued panels proved that the work of the woman’s face was not painted by Rembrandt.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 142, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: that
...ease the value of the work by others so that that the present version of the work is not ...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
apparently, first, however, if, moreover, so, whereas, in conclusion, it is true, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 10.4613686534 153% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 7.30242825607 110% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 12.0772626932 141% => OK
Pronoun: 18.0 22.412803532 80% => OK
Preposition: 47.0 30.3222958057 155% => 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: 1599.0 1373.03311258 116% => OK
No of words: 332.0 270.72406181 123% => OK
Chars per words: 4.81626506024 5.08290768461 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.2685907696 4.04702891845 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.51744349963 2.5805825403 98% => OK
Unique words: 155.0 145.348785872 107% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.46686746988 0.540411800872 86% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 469.8 419.366225166 112% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.55342163355 90% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 3.25607064018 31% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.23620309051 73% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.51434878587 198% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 8.0 13.0662251656 61% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 41.0 21.2450331126 193% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 166.443637232 49.2860985944 338% => The lengths of sentences changed so frequently.
Chars per sentence: 199.875 110.228320801 181% => OK
Words per sentence: 41.5 21.698381199 191% => OK
Discourse Markers: 12.125 7.06452816374 172% => 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: 3.0 4.27373068433 70% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.200694878872 0.272083759551 74% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0884597431764 0.0996497079465 89% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0820884554577 0.0662205650399 124% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.128100721593 0.162205337803 79% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0631336066484 0.0443174109184 142% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 22.0 13.3589403974 165% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 46.78 53.8541721854 87% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 16.9 11.0289183223 153% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.56 12.2367328918 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.9 8.42419426049 106% => OK
difficult_words: 68.0 63.6247240618 107% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 10.7273730684 121% => OK
gunning_fog: 18.4 10.498013245 175% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
Rates: 73.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.0 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.