Based on the given materials, the article as well the lecture discusses Voynich manuscript, which is an old manuscript acquired by Wilfrid M. Voynich, a bookseller, and written on vellum, which was a material for writing at that time. The author states that there are several viable theories regarding guesses about possible author of the Voynich manuscript. That being said, the lecturer provides several ideas to repudiate this claim.
Initially, the author says that the manuscript would have been written by Ascham, who was a physician and had a book, named Little Herbal, in which there were illustrated plant's descriptions similar to Voynich manuscripts. However, the speaker explains that Ascham was an ordinary physician and did not contain any original ideas. Even in his book, he described plants based on other well-known sources. Thus, it seems that he had not been an acceptable author anymore, and the complex codes of Voynich manuscript could not be his work.
Second, the writer proclaims that the manuscript could have been a fake book proposed by Kelley, who extracted money during magical shows. Yet again, the lecturer underscores that Kelley was perfect in tricking people, and it doesn't seem that he creates a fake book to trick people owing to the fact that people in 16th century were fool enough to be tricked by quite easier methods, not with a complex book.
The final contention between the reading and the listening passage is Voynich's tricks. The author thinks that since Voynich himself knew that what the old manuscripts should look like, the Voynich manuscript could have been created by M. Voynich. On the other hand, the speaker explains that there are modern methods analysis which show possible date of the manuscript. Based on the reports, both the vellum paper and ink-on pages are for more than 400 years ago, which does not match with the authorship life of Voynich. It seems plausible that he had used old vellum pages, but there is no possibility for using 400-years-old ink.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 227, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
... was perfect in tricking people, and it doesnt seem that he creates a fake book to tri...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 310, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'methods'' or 'method's'?
Suggestion: methods'; method's
... speaker explains that there are modern methods analysis which show possible date of th...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, however, if, look, regarding, second, so, thus, well, as to, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 10.4613686534 182% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 21.0 12.0772626932 174% => OK
Pronoun: 25.0 22.412803532 112% => OK
Preposition: 33.0 30.3222958057 109% => 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: 1692.0 1373.03311258 123% => OK
No of words: 334.0 270.72406181 123% => OK
Chars per words: 5.06586826347 5.08290768461 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.27500489853 4.04702891845 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.50004123456 2.5805825403 97% => OK
Unique words: 189.0 145.348785872 130% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.565868263473 0.540411800872 105% => OK
syllable_count: 494.1 419.366225166 118% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 12.0 8.23620309051 146% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 5.0 1.51434878587 330% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 21.2450331126 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 51.1809860528 49.2860985944 104% => OK
Chars per sentence: 112.8 110.228320801 102% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.2666666667 21.698381199 103% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.53333333333 7.06452816374 78% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => 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: 0.309259125809 0.272083759551 114% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.103036151302 0.0996497079465 103% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0788224650175 0.0662205650399 119% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.184331562826 0.162205337803 114% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0816579279657 0.0443174109184 184% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.6 13.3589403974 102% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 57.61 53.8541721854 107% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 11.0289183223 97% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.42 12.2367328918 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.98 8.42419426049 107% => OK
difficult_words: 90.0 63.6247240618 141% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.498013245 103% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
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.