TPO35 In 1912 a bookseller named Wilfrid M. Voynich acquired a beautifully illustrated handwritten book (manuscript) written on vellum (vellum is a material that was used for writing before the introduction of paper). The "Voynich manuscript," as it became known, resembles manuscripts written in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. However, it is written in a completely unknown script. To date, no one has been able to decode the script and understand the book's content. Several theories have been proposed to explain the origin of the Voynich manuscript. One theory is that the manuscript is a genuine work on some scientific or magical subject composed in a complex secret code. Anthony Ascham, a sixteenth-century physician and botanist, has been identified as a possible author, since many plant illustrations in the Voynich manuscript are quite similar to those in Ascham's book on medicinal plants, A Little Herbal, published in 1550. According to some other theories, the manuscript is really a fake and its text has no real meaning. For example, it has been proposed the manuscript was created by Edward Kelley, a sixteenth century personality who extracted money from nobles across Europe by pretending to have magical powers. Kelley may have created the manuscript as a fake magical book to sell to a wealthy noble. He used a made-up alphabet in a completely random order. It looks like a book of magical secrets, but there is no meaningful underlying text. Another theory is that the manuscript is actually a modern fake created by Wilfrid M. Voynich himself. As an antique book dealer, Voynich certainly had the knowledge of what old manuscripts should look like and could have created a fake one. Perhaps Voynich's plan was to sell the fake as a mysterious old book if he received an attractive offer.
The text says that there is an old book that it is similar to a manuscripts. This mysterious book resembles writeen in the fifteenth and sixteenth crnturies. Until now, this book was not been decoded. Based on the text there are three theories that explains the origin of the book. However the lecture disagree with these theories and refutes each o the author's reasons.
First, the reading suggests that this book is a particular book and contains a lot of precious data. However, the professor rejects this idea by stating that Ascham was an oridinary man. The professor describes that the mentioned authot has just some typical books withou any determined idea. Also, the professor states about the herb and adds that this herb was not somethings such valuable. So, this theory is not correct.
Second, the passage supposes that the manuscript is a fake withot meaningful content that provided by Kelly. The lecture rebuts this reason by stating that the manuscripts are very elaborated. So, for fooling people in sisteenh century there is no need to such efforts and a simple book was enough to fool people. As you can see, by preparing a simple book he can obtain money. As a result, this theori is false.
Third, the reading contends that this book is a modern fake taht created by a book dealer. However the talk refutes the idea by describing that todau there are many advanced tools that can examine the book's material like ink. The experiments show that inks are belong to many times ago and the book is sreally an ancient book. As you can see, the professor rejects all the theories by providing meaningful examples.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 63, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[1]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'a manuscript' or simply 'manuscripts'?
Suggestion: a manuscript; manuscripts
...re is an old book that it is similar to a manuscripts. This mysterious book resembles writeen...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 123, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...mysterious book resembles writeen in the fifteenth and sixteenth crnturies. Until...
^^
Line 1, column 181, Rule ID: WAS_BEEN[2]
Message: Did you mean 'was not' or 'has not been'?
Suggestion: was not; has not been
...xteenth crnturies. Until now, this book was not been decoded. Based on the text there are th...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 284, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: However,
...s that explains the origin of the book. However the lecture disagree with these theorie...
^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 92, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: However,
...ern fake taht created by a book dealer. However the talk refutes the idea by describing...
^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 262, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'belonged'.
Suggestion: belonged
...ink. The experiments show that inks are belong to many times ago and the book is sreal...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, really, second, so, third, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 10.4613686534 172% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 12.0772626932 116% => OK
Pronoun: 28.0 22.412803532 125% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 20.0 30.3222958057 66% => OK
Nominalization: 0.0 5.01324503311 0% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1350.0 1373.03311258 98% => OK
No of words: 281.0 270.72406181 104% => OK
Chars per words: 4.80427046263 5.08290768461 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.09427095027 4.04702891845 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.42448806433 2.5805825403 94% => OK
Unique words: 153.0 145.348785872 105% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.544483985765 0.540411800872 101% => OK
syllable_count: 408.6 419.366225166 97% => 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: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 1.25165562914 320% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 13.0662251656 145% => OK
Sentence length: 14.0 21.2450331126 66% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 26.3744609114 49.2860985944 54% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 71.0526315789 110.228320801 64% => OK
Words per sentence: 14.7894736842 21.698381199 68% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.63157894737 7.06452816374 51% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 4.19205298013 143% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 9.0 4.27373068433 211% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.103320014388 0.272083759551 38% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.034556742705 0.0996497079465 35% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0226196984071 0.0662205650399 34% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0689877052241 0.162205337803 43% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0173866327988 0.0443174109184 39% => 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: 8.6 13.3589403974 64% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 65.73 53.8541721854 122% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 7.6 11.0289183223 69% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 9.97 12.2367328918 81% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.88 8.42419426049 105% => OK
difficult_words: 81.0 63.6247240618 127% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 5.5 10.7273730684 51% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 7.6 10.498013245 72% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 65.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 19.5 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.