The main idea of both the reading and the lecturer is about some theories about the author of ''Voynich manuscript", a handwritten book which its author was not known. Although the reading states three theories about the author of the book, the lecturer finds them dubious and provides three counter reasons to refute them all.
Firstly, the author mentions that the manuscript was assigned to Anthony Aschem who wrote some scientific or magical texts to convey some secret meanings, such as a similar book of his, named "A Little Herbal". However, the lecturer explains that he could not have been the author since the mentioned book is just about some information on common plants that extracted from famous resources. Thus, it was not necessary to write texts in such a secret style with numerous codes.
Furthermore, the reading asserts that the manuscript is a fake version that was written by Edward Kelly to attract people to convince them having magic power. The lecturer, on the other hand, claims that the book is such an elaborate text which needs many efforts to be established. However, the people in the era of Kelly were foolish enough to believe him, thus, he didn't need to put all these efforts to write a so complex and sophisticated text. Also, there were more simpole books and methods to deceive people in that time.
Eventually, the reading states that the author of the book is Voynich himself. He did so to sell his book as a mysterious old book. In contrast, according to the lecturer, the materials, both vellum and ink, used to establish this book were so old and dated back to 400 years ago. However, if he wanted to do that, he must have provided the materials that dated back about 400 year ago which might be possible for the vellum, but not for the ink.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 368, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: didn't
...foolish enough to believe him, thus, he didnt need to put all these efforts to write ...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, furthermore, however, if, so, thus, in contrast, such as, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 10.4613686534 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 7.30242825607 110% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 12.0772626932 116% => OK
Pronoun: 26.0 22.412803532 116% => 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: 1494.0 1373.03311258 109% => OK
No of words: 312.0 270.72406181 115% => OK
Chars per words: 4.78846153846 5.08290768461 94% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.20279927342 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.48681599247 2.5805825403 96% => OK
Unique words: 171.0 145.348785872 118% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.548076923077 0.540411800872 101% => OK
syllable_count: 449.1 419.366225166 107% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.55342163355 90% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 21.2450331126 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 47.6103514178 49.2860985944 97% => OK
Chars per sentence: 114.923076923 110.228320801 104% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.0 21.698381199 111% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.84615384615 7.06452816374 111% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 4.45695364238 45% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.27373068433 187% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.206125027473 0.272083759551 76% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0715270154032 0.0996497079465 72% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0525155582671 0.0662205650399 79% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.116361508654 0.162205337803 72% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0267766359841 0.0443174109184 60% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.1 13.3589403974 98% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 64.04 53.8541721854 119% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 11.0289183223 93% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.8 12.2367328918 88% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.42 8.42419426049 100% => OK
difficult_words: 71.0 63.6247240618 112% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 10.7273730684 121% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 10.498013245 110% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.2008830022 116% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 85.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 25.5 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.