TPO 35
Both of the provided materials are discussing an old manuscript and its origin. The reading mentions three possible explanations for the encoded manuscript, whereas the lecturer finds them all unlikely and not convincing.
First, the reading attributes the script to a physician, Anthony Ascham. The lecture contends this theory by mentioning that Ascham was just an ordinary scientist, and none of his works contained any ingenious theory or discovery. He adds that the encoded material cannot contain any special and powerful if it is a work by Ascham for he was not a magician nor a genius man.
Second, the reading hypothesizes another author for this vellum: Edward kelly. The professor, on the other hand, finds this theory not good enough. He mentions that if the sole purpose of writing such a book is to deceive wealthy to pay money for it, he could have easily achieved this aim by putting much less effort into the fake book. He explains that creating this alphabet and putting it in this order so that it looks really must have taken a lot of time, and Kelly was not a man of this task.
Third, the reading provides another theory regarding the author of the manuscript, which is assigning the artifact to the finder himself. The lecture opposes this theory as well by stating that the examination has made an estimation for the creation date of the relic: It is four-hundred years old. Thus, if the book dealer wanted to create such a fake book, not only he should have had access to ancient vellum, but he also must have had four hundred years old ink. So, this theory is not telling as well.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 57, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ng attributes the script to a physician, Anthony Ascham. The lecture contends thi...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, if, look, really, regarding, second, so, third, thus, well, whereas, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 10.4613686534 86% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 12.0772626932 58% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 31.0 22.412803532 138% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 21.0 30.3222958057 69% => 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: 1341.0 1373.03311258 98% => OK
No of words: 281.0 270.72406181 104% => OK
Chars per words: 4.77224199288 5.08290768461 94% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.09427095027 4.04702891845 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.47555391147 2.5805825403 96% => OK
Unique words: 163.0 145.348785872 112% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.580071174377 0.540411800872 107% => OK
syllable_count: 405.9 419.366225166 97% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.55342163355 90% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.51434878587 198% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 21.2450331126 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 46.1762766008 49.2860985944 94% => OK
Chars per sentence: 103.153846154 110.228320801 94% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.6153846154 21.698381199 100% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.0 7.06452816374 113% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.27373068433 117% => 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: 11.8 13.3589403974 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 67.08 53.8541721854 125% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 11.0289183223 83% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.39 12.2367328918 85% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.5 8.42419426049 101% => OK
difficult_words: 68.0 63.6247240618 107% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.498013245 99% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => 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.