This material addresses the question of whether the painting of an old woman could be attributed to Rembrandt. The reading passage suggests that the painting is not one of the famous painter's works. The lecturer, on the other hand, refutes this information by stating that the portrait under consideration belongs to the Dutch painter's hand /brush/.
To begin with, the reading passage highlights that the woman on the portrait is wearing a servant's cap and an aristocrat’s clothes - an inconsistency which Rembrandt would not have made /tolerated/. Meanwhile, the professor casts doubt on this and argues that there is evidence that a part of the painting with the luxury clothing was added by another painter later in order to increase its value.
Additionally, the article posits that the picture has another drawback which shows the inability of its creator to reflect light and shadow properly. The problem is that a professional would not have reflected light on the woman's face without shadow since the fur collar on her clothes would have absorbed the light illuminating the woman's face from the relevant position. However, the professor advocates a different approach and provides the following details. Namely, she mentions that the original wearing of the woman portrayed in the painting was consistent with the form of light on the woman's face.
Finally, the author invites attention to the fact that Rembrandt had never paint on glued together wood panels, as it was the case with the portrait. This goes counter to /with/ the information in the listening passage, according to which, the wood panels were added later when another painter added some fragments to it.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 25, Rule ID: WHETHER[3]
Message: Wordiness: Shorten this phrase to the shortest possible suggestion.
Suggestion: whether; the question whether
This material addresses the question of whether the painting of an old woman could be a...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 76, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Possible agreement error -- use past participle here: 'painted'.
Suggestion: painted
...on to the fact that Rembrandt had never paint on glued together wood panels, as it wa...
^^^^^
Line 4, column 322, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...her painter added some fragments to it.
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, however, if, so, while, to begin with, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 10.4613686534 86% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 7.30242825607 55% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 13.0 12.0772626932 108% => OK
Pronoun: 19.0 22.412803532 85% => OK
Preposition: 38.0 30.3222958057 125% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 5.01324503311 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1416.0 1373.03311258 103% => OK
No of words: 273.0 270.72406181 101% => OK
Chars per words: 5.18681318681 5.08290768461 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.06481385082 4.04702891845 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.73309664151 2.5805825403 106% => OK
Unique words: 152.0 145.348785872 105% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.556776556777 0.540411800872 103% => OK
syllable_count: 421.2 419.366225166 100% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 11.0 13.0662251656 84% => 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: 24.0 21.2450331126 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 42.681600348 49.2860985944 87% => OK
Chars per sentence: 128.727272727 110.228320801 117% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.8181818182 21.698381199 114% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.36363636364 7.06452816374 90% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => 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: 6.0 4.27373068433 140% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.114684374774 0.272083759551 42% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0465313272551 0.0996497079465 47% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0359674230979 0.0662205650399 54% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.07327273358 0.162205337803 45% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0401051578866 0.0443174109184 90% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.4 13.3589403974 115% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 55.58 53.8541721854 103% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 11.0289183223 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.12 12.2367328918 107% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.64 8.42419426049 103% => OK
difficult_words: 66.0 63.6247240618 104% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 10.498013245 110% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.0 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.