The article states the 'Portrait of an Elderly Woman in a White Bonnet' is not a work of famous Dutch painter Rembrandt as it is claimed and provides three reasons of supporting. However, the professor says that evidence are found to prove that the painting was done by Rembrandt and she refutes each points of the article.
First, the article claims that Rembrandt was meticulous about the details of his painting but there is an inconsistency about the cloting of the woman in the painting. The professor refutes this point by saying that the fur collar was added in the original painting around 100 years later by experts. She elaborates that, the original painting did not have the fur collar. The experts added the fur collar to the original painting to enhance the value the painting. Therefore, it can be said that the portrait was correct in it's details as would Rembrandt do.
Second, the reading passage says that the portrait does not shows the accuracy of light and shadow in which Rembrandt was extraordinary. The professor states that the original painting indeed reflects the combinations of light and shadow. According to her, the result of the researchers show that due to adding extra color to the painting caused such error of those elements.
Third, the article states that Rembrandt used to paint in one piece of wood but the portrait was painted in several pieces of wood. The professor opposes the claim by explaining that it was found by the expert that the portrait was painted in the same wood which Rembrandt used to paint. She continuos by saying that the original painting was a single piece of wood and experts added the extra panel of woods to enhance the value of the painting. Therefore, it is proved that the painting has all those characteristics which can be found in a work of Rembrandt.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 61, Rule ID: DOES_X_HAS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'show'? As 'do' is already inflected, the verb cannot also be inflected.
Suggestion: show
...passage says that the portrait does not shows the accuracy of light and shadow in whi...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 61, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[3]
Message: The verb 'does' requires base form of the verb: 'show'
Suggestion: show
...passage says that the portrait does not shows the accuracy of light and shadow in whi...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, second, so, therefore, third
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 10.4613686534 153% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 5.04856512141 59% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 12.0772626932 141% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 22.412803532 120% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 43.0 30.3222958057 142% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 5.01324503311 60% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1517.0 1373.03311258 110% => OK
No of words: 315.0 270.72406181 116% => OK
Chars per words: 4.81587301587 5.08290768461 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.21286593061 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.54011901011 2.5805825403 98% => OK
Unique words: 137.0 145.348785872 94% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.434920634921 0.540411800872 80% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 449.1 419.366225166 107% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.55342163355 90% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 21.2450331126 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 29.9332590942 49.2860985944 61% => OK
Chars per sentence: 108.357142857 110.228320801 98% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.5 21.698381199 104% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.5 7.06452816374 50% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 4.45695364238 22% => 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: 0.497369466892 0.272083759551 183% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.20403814634 0.0996497079465 205% => Sentence topic similarity is high.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0785434116055 0.0662205650399 119% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.322780032209 0.162205337803 199% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0795073927542 0.0443174109184 179% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.5 13.3589403974 94% => Automated_readability_index is low.
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: 10.97 12.2367328918 90% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.53 8.42419426049 89% => OK
difficult_words: 56.0 63.6247240618 88% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 10.7273730684 126% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.498013245 103% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 73.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.0 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.