tpo35
Both the reading and listening parts offer two opposite views about the author of the Voynich manuscript. While the passage lists three possible theories to assume the possible author, the lecturer lists the contradictory of these hypotheses and call them into the question.
The first assumption taken by the text is the author of the book is Ascham who wanted to explain the scientific subject in the complex coded way. However, the professor casts doubt on the accuracy of this assumption. As he explains, the photo of plant depicted in the manuscript is a common herbal shown in the various well-known books; so, this book does not share a complex or secret contend. Furthermore, the Ascham was an ordinary scientist and based on his level of knowledge he could not write a complicated note.
Secondly, the passage considered Edward Kelley as the possible writer of the manuscript who tried to sell the fake magical manuscript of becoming wealthy to earn the money. On the other hand, the instructor challenges the validity of this surmise. As he posits, although the Kelley was a notorious person, there was no requirement for writing such complicated and coded manuscript to deceives the people. The people on that period was fool enough to get deceived by the simple book instead of this complex one.
Finally, meanwhile, the reading section surmised the possible author of the manuscript was M. Voynich himself, who modern fake the book to sell it as an ancient and mysterious one; the listening section, on the other hand, refutes this surmise too. As the lecturer asserts, there is a modern technology which can lucidly clarify the data of vellum and ink. Besides, according to the analysis done by this technology, vellum and ink are 400 years old. Even Voynich had access to the old vellum, he could not find an ink with that much age. Thus, the manuscript is written years before the Voynich.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
besides, finally, first, furthermore, however, if, second, secondly, so, thus, well, while, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 10.4613686534 105% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 5.04856512141 59% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 7.30242825607 110% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 12.0772626932 50% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 17.0 22.412803532 76% => OK
Preposition: 37.0 30.3222958057 122% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1595.0 1373.03311258 116% => OK
No of words: 322.0 270.72406181 119% => OK
Chars per words: 4.95341614907 5.08290768461 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.23607819155 4.04702891845 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.59142649915 2.5805825403 100% => OK
Unique words: 179.0 145.348785872 123% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.555900621118 0.540411800872 103% => OK
syllable_count: 482.4 419.366225166 115% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 1.25165562914 399% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 13.0662251656 122% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 37.9415154382 49.2860985944 77% => OK
Chars per sentence: 99.6875 110.228320801 90% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.125 21.698381199 93% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.8125 7.06452816374 96% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 4.33554083885 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => OK
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: 0.0 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: 11.9 13.3589403974 89% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 59.64 53.8541721854 111% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.0289183223 90% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.43 12.2367328918 93% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.75 8.42419426049 104% => OK
difficult_words: 84.0 63.6247240618 132% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
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.