TPO35 voynich
In the passage, the author simply provides three theories which have been proposed to explain the origin of the Voynich. However, in the lecture, the professor illustrates that it is full of holes and disagrees with that from all three aspects.
To begin with, in the passage, the author thinks that the manuscript is a genuine work on some scientific or magical subject composed in a complex secret code. Nevertheless, in the lecture, the professor holds the view that Ascham who is a physician and botanist had no such ability to finish the complex code.
Besides, the second theory the professor casts doubts on is that the manuscript is really a fake and its text has no real meaning. On the contrary, in the lecture, the professor considers that people in that age did not have enough knowledge to distinguish the real from the fake. So, it was not necessary to take much care for it to make it complex and look like the real.
Finally, another evidence the professor adopts to refute the passage is that the manuscript is actually a modern fake created by Voynich himself. In the passage, the author states that Voynich planned to sell the fake to gain interest. Conversely, in the lecture, the professor argues that the ink on the manuscript is 400 years ago. So it is impossible for Voynich to create a fake one without the ink from that time.
To sum up, the author probably ignores something important, and whether the theory can stand needs to be discussed further.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 15, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...e one without the ink from that time. To sum up, the author probably ignores s...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, besides, conversely, finally, however, if, look, nevertheless, really, second, so, on the contrary, to begin with, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 10.4613686534 115% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 1.0 5.04856512141 20% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 12.0772626932 108% => OK
Pronoun: 18.0 22.412803532 80% => OK
Preposition: 36.0 30.3222958057 119% => 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: 1242.0 1373.03311258 90% => OK
No of words: 258.0 270.72406181 95% => OK
Chars per words: 4.81395348837 5.08290768461 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.00778971557 4.04702891845 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.54052249587 2.5805825403 98% => OK
Unique words: 136.0 145.348785872 94% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.527131782946 0.540411800872 98% => OK
syllable_count: 380.7 419.366225166 91% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 3.25607064018 31% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 10.0 2.5761589404 388% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 21.2450331126 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 25.0636689254 49.2860985944 51% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 103.5 110.228320801 94% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.5 21.698381199 99% => OK
Discourse Markers: 11.1666666667 7.06452816374 158% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => 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: 2.0 4.27373068433 47% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0963749922754 0.272083759551 35% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0414640981692 0.0996497079465 42% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0589977567415 0.0662205650399 89% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0483666515877 0.162205337803 30% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0646124021626 0.0443174109184 146% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.0 13.3589403974 90% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 58.62 53.8541721854 109% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 11.0289183223 93% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.62 12.2367328918 87% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.04 8.42419426049 95% => OK
difficult_words: 55.0 63.6247240618 86% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.498013245 99% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.