TPO35
The reading and listening materials both deal with the same topic about the origin of the Voynich manuscript. In the reading passage, there are three theories posed to explain it, but these theories are challenged by the professor using solid evidence.
First, according to the author, this manuscript may be from Anthony, a botanist in the sixteen century. However, the professor disagrees with that. He states that this manuscript does not fit to the well-known original books of this botanist, and those plants in his books are common, but not unique as that in the manuscript, which means that it is unlikely that this manuscript is from the botanist.
Second, the author claims that the manuscript is a fake magical book from a tricky person back then, whereas the professor casts doubt on it. As said by the professor, people in sixteen-century is fool and easy to be deceived, so that this man could create simple words to deceive them, which means that he had no any reason to make such a complex manuscript for his purpose. Thus, this theory does not make sense, as well.
Third, the author says that it maybe a modern fake from an antique book dealer for his fortune, while the professor challenges it. This is mainly because the result of dating using modern techniques shows that this manuscript is 400 years old, so that it is not created by the dealer, but obtained by him. Therefore, this theory is also not right.
In conclusion, the professor disputes the three theories mentioned in the reading material using strong evidence.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 312, Rule ID: NOW[2]
Message: Did you mean 'now' (=at this moment) instead of 'no' (negation)?
Suggestion: now
...o deceive them, which means that he had no any reason to make such a complex manus...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, may, second, so, then, therefore, third, thus, well, whereas, while, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 10.4613686534 124% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 5.04856512141 40% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 12.0772626932 108% => OK
Pronoun: 35.0 22.412803532 156% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 28.0 30.3222958057 92% => OK
Nominalization: 2.0 5.01324503311 40% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1295.0 1373.03311258 94% => OK
No of words: 264.0 270.72406181 98% => OK
Chars per words: 4.9053030303 5.08290768461 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.03089032464 4.04702891845 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.52712272918 2.5805825403 98% => OK
Unique words: 146.0 145.348785872 100% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.55303030303 0.540411800872 102% => OK
syllable_count: 381.6 419.366225166 91% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.55342163355 90% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.23620309051 73% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 1.25165562914 399% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 4.0 1.51434878587 264% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 21.2450331126 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 65.6359382419 49.2860985944 133% => OK
Chars per sentence: 107.916666667 110.228320801 98% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.0 21.698381199 101% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.08333333333 7.06452816374 129% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => 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: 3.0 4.27373068433 70% => 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: 66.07 53.8541721854 123% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 11.0289183223 86% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.2 12.2367328918 92% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.26 8.42419426049 98% => OK
difficult_words: 59.0 63.6247240618 93% => 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?
---------------------
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.