The article claims that there is a possibility that 'Portrait of an Elderly Woman in a White Bonnet' is not a work done by the famous painter Rembrandt and provies three reasons of supporting. However, the professor states that recent evidence claims it is a work of Rembrandt and refutes each points of the reading.
First, the reading passage says that Rembrandt was meticulous to the details of this subject's clothing. But the certain painting shows missmatch to it's details. The professor refutes the point by saying that recent researchers added something to the painting to reserve it. That is why it is a little bit confusing to understand the details.
Second, the article states that the painting has an error of light and shadow but Rembrandt was genious of painting light and shadow. The professor claims that it was indeed a work of Rembrandt as it shows the work of light and shadow when it gone under x-ray. The professor explains that the linen cap of the woman in the picture refects the shadow.
Finally, the passage claims that Rembrandt used to paint on woods but the certain portrait was painted in several pieces of wood which were glued together. The professor opposes this point by saying that it was proved that the protait was painted from the same wood which Rembrandt used to paint. She continues by saying that researcher glued the wood as forecolor was added to it.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 295, Rule ID: LITTLE_BIT[1]
Message: Reduce redundancy by using 'little' or 'bit'.
Suggestion: little; bit
...ting to reserve it. That is why it is a little bit confusing to understand the details. ...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, however, second, so, as for
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 10.4613686534 124% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 0.0 5.04856512141 0% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 7.30242825607 110% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 12.0772626932 132% => OK
Pronoun: 25.0 22.412803532 112% => OK
Preposition: 30.0 30.3222958057 99% => 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: 1161.0 1373.03311258 85% => OK
No of words: 241.0 270.72406181 89% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.81742738589 5.08290768461 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.94007293032 4.04702891845 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.43844344599 2.5805825403 94% => OK
Unique words: 109.0 145.348785872 75% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.452282157676 0.540411800872 84% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 331.2 419.366225166 79% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.55342163355 90% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => 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: 0.0 2.5761589404 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 36.4390663376 49.2860985944 74% => OK
Chars per sentence: 96.75 110.228320801 88% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.0833333333 21.698381199 93% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.0 7.06452816374 57% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
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: 7.0 4.27373068433 164% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.444520660492 0.272083759551 163% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.173608174743 0.0996497079465 174% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.12813198586 0.0662205650399 193% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.273090683485 0.162205337803 168% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.10858382566 0.0443174109184 245% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.3 13.3589403974 85% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 68.1 53.8541721854 126% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.7 11.0289183223 79% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.68 12.2367328918 87% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.64 8.42419426049 91% => OK
difficult_words: 46.0 63.6247240618 72% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 60.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 18.0 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.