TPO 3
Both the reading and the lecturer talk about the validity of one of the paintings of Rembrandt; a woman's face. The reading argues that this piece of painting does not actually represent Rembrandt's original painting. However, the lecturer casts the shadow on this fact and provides three main opposite reasons to refute them all.
First, the reading states that there is an inconsistency in the woman's dressing style. On the other hand, the lecturer claims that by means of X-Ray and some other analyses, it became clear that someone had added some pigments and paintings to the original portrait in order to make it more granted by showing more formal lady gesture. Therefore, the fur color was not in the original painting.
Second, the reading indicates that there is a mistake in the way that Rembrandt has used to show shadow and light in the portrait. However, the lecturer refutes this fact, suggesting that by cleaning the top layer of the portrait, the original painting indicates an unsophisticated woman wearing light color cloth in which reflex of light illuminates her face so as her face is not in shadow. In fact, the woman's face is very simple and realistic.
Third, the reading talks about the wood panel that the portrait has been depicted on. According to the reading, the panel should be single wood panel, whereas the present portrait is made on some piece of glued wood. Conversely, the lecturer argues that by addition of the later pigments to the original painting, the size of the panel should be enlarged so as to be more valuable and precious. Also, researchers have found that the original wood panel is from the same tree that Rembrandt used to make panels for his paintings.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 355, Rule ID: SO_AS_TO[1]
Message: Use simply 'to'
Suggestion: to
...he size of the panel should be enlarged so as to be more valuable and precious. Also, re...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, conversely, first, however, second, so, therefore, third, whereas, as to, in fact, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 10.4613686534 105% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 5.04856512141 40% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 20.0 22.412803532 89% => OK
Preposition: 37.0 30.3222958057 122% => OK
Nominalization: 1.0 5.01324503311 20% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1418.0 1373.03311258 103% => OK
No of words: 291.0 270.72406181 107% => OK
Chars per words: 4.87285223368 5.08290768461 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.13022058845 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.4801904075 2.5805825403 96% => OK
Unique words: 147.0 145.348785872 101% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.505154639175 0.540411800872 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 433.8 419.366225166 103% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 3.25607064018 31% => OK
Article: 14.0 8.23620309051 170% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 21.2450331126 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 61.7835504046 49.2860985944 125% => OK
Chars per sentence: 109.076923077 110.228320801 99% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.3846153846 21.698381199 103% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.92307692308 7.06452816374 126% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 4.45695364238 67% => OK
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: 0.0 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: 12.7 13.3589403974 95% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 57.61 53.8541721854 107% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 11.0289183223 97% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.26 12.2367328918 92% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.93 8.42419426049 94% => OK
difficult_words: 59.0 63.6247240618 93% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.498013245 103% => 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.