TPO35
In this set of material, both of the reading and lecture discuss on a handwritten book is called the Voynich manuscript. A bookseller named Vynich acquired it and it is related with fifteen and sixteen centuries. The reading provides three theories about the origin of the manuscript; however the professor finds all ideas dubious. The information the professor tenders contradicts the fact outlined in the reading passage.
First, the text declares that this book could have created by Anthony ascheme who he was a botanist in sixteen century, because many plant in this manuscript are similar to those in Ascham's book; in contrast the lecture refutes it. The professor expresses that this person was an ordinary scientist and presented the simple idea which were in well-known sources; hence he did not had such a great knowledge for creating such a complex code.
Second, the author of reading claims that this manuscript is fake and it may have been written by Edward Kelley. In fact this man wrote it as a fake magical book because he was inclined to earn money from wealthy people; on the contrary the lecture believe that people had a simple knowledge in that time; consequently Kelley did not need to spend a lot of time for working on these complex codes, even he could have not had such a knowledge.
Third, the article professes that it is plausible that the Voynich manuscript created by the bookseller himself with the propos of obtaining money; conversely the lecture reject this theory too. based on the data techniques, it is revealed that data of materials of book like ink and other things is related with 400 years ago and it was written many centuries ago before Wilfred M. Voyn.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 112, Rule ID: CD_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun 'century' seems to be countable, so consider using: 'centuries'.
Suggestion: centuries
...scheme who he was a botanist in sixteen century, because many plant in this manuscript ...
^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 129, Rule ID: MANY_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun plant seems to be countable; consider using: 'many plants'.
Suggestion: many plants
... a botanist in sixteen century, because many plant in this manuscript are similar to those...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 381, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[1]
Message: The verb 'did' requires the base form of the verb: 'have'
Suggestion: have
...in well-known sources; hence he did not had such a great knowledge for creating suc...
^^^
Line 4, column 390, Rule ID: A_UNCOUNTABLE[4]
Message: Uncountable nouns are usually not used with an indefinite article. Use simply 'great knowledge'.
Suggestion: great knowledge
...nown sources; hence he did not had such a great knowledge for creating such a complex code. Se...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 6, column 274, Rule ID: A_UNCOUNTABLE[4]
Message: Uncountable nouns are usually not used with an indefinite article. Use simply 'simple knowledge'.
Suggestion: simple knowledge
...ary the lecture believe that people had a simple knowledge in that time; consequently Kelley did n...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 6, column 431, Rule ID: A_UNCOUNTABLE[2]
Message: Uncountable nouns are usually not used with an indefinite article. Use simply 'knowledge'.
Suggestion: knowledge
... codes, even he could have not had such a knowledge. Third, the article professes that i...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 8, column 196, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Based
...ely the lecture reject this theory too. based on the data techniques, it is revealed ...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
consequently, conversely, first, hence, however, if, may, second, so, third, well, in contrast, in fact, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 10.4613686534 124% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 30.0 22.412803532 134% => OK
Preposition: 34.0 30.3222958057 112% => OK
Nominalization: 1.0 5.01324503311 20% => More nominalization wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1423.0 1373.03311258 104% => OK
No of words: 290.0 270.72406181 107% => OK
Chars per words: 4.90689655172 5.08290768461 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.12666770723 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.54248326745 2.5805825403 99% => OK
Unique words: 161.0 145.348785872 111% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.555172413793 0.540411800872 103% => OK
syllable_count: 432.9 419.366225166 103% => 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
Interrogative: 0.0 0.116997792494 0% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 10.0 13.0662251656 77% => OK
Sentence length: 29.0 21.2450331126 137% => OK
Sentence length SD: 72.3359523335 49.2860985944 147% => OK
Chars per sentence: 142.3 110.228320801 129% => OK
Words per sentence: 29.0 21.698381199 134% => OK
Discourse Markers: 12.0 7.06452816374 170% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 7.0 4.19205298013 167% => 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: 2.0 4.27373068433 47% => 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: 16.2 13.3589403974 121% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.5 53.8541721854 94% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 11.0289183223 121% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.79 12.2367328918 96% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.1 8.42419426049 108% => OK
difficult_words: 74.0 63.6247240618 116% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 10.7273730684 84% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.6 10.498013245 130% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.2008830022 125% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.