vvfaegath
The reading states that although, Rembrandt was a famous painter, some of his works are not original. To prove this point, the passage uses painting named Potrait Of an Elderly in a White Bonnet as an example. Reading provides three reasons for illustrating that this painting was not an original work of Rembrandt. However, the lecture states reasons for why the proofs provided in the reading are false.
Firstly, the reading states that there is an inconsistency in the way women is dressed. She is wearing a linen cap which is generally used by the servants, but surprisingly she is seen wearing a luxurious fur. Rembrant, who is known for his meticulous nature doesn't commit such mistakes which creates doubts about the authenticity of the painting. However, the professor provides the reason for this. She states that the fur Collar was an addition for the painting to make it seem more rich and was not part of the original painting. Hence rubbishing the claim made by the reading.
Secondly, the reading states that Rembrant, who's known for his mastery of painting light and shadow cannot have painted this particular painting as there are no elements that fit together like the face which is supposed to appear partially in shadow which it shouldn't. However the professor states that this was due to the addition of fur collar, and once the fur collar was removed, the face was no longer impartial.
Lastly, reading states that the painting panel was made of several wood pieces glued together. This style is generally never followed by Rembrandt. But the professor refutes this by explaining that the wood panel was enlarged in order to add and support the fur collar to bring a more ornate look to the painting. Indeed, after the removal of the wood panel it's noteworthy that the wood used in this painting was similar to the wood used for other paintings that were works of Rembrandt.
In conclusion, the professor is successful in illustrating that this work is an authentic Rembrandt's work.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...provided in the reading are false. Firstly, the reading states that there i...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 266, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
... who is known for his meticulous nature doesnt commit such mistakes which creates doub...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 541, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Hence,
... was not part of the original painting. Hence rubbishing the claim made by the readin...
^^^^^
Line 9, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ing the claim made by the reading. Secondly, the reading states that Rembra...
^^^^^^
Line 9, column 51, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: who's
...ndly, the reading states that Rembrant, whos known for his mastery of painting light...
^^^^
Line 9, column 266, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: shouldn't
... to appear partially in shadow which it shouldnt. However the professor states that this...
^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 276, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: However,
... partially in shadow which it shouldnt. However the professor states that this was due ...
^^^^^^^
Line 13, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...the face was no longer impartial. Lastly, reading states that the painting...
^^^^^^
Line 15, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ntings that were works of Rembrandt. In conclusion, the professor is suc...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, firstly, hence, however, lastly, look, second, secondly, so, then, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 24.0 10.4613686534 229% => Less to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 1.0 5.04856512141 20% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 12.0772626932 141% => OK
Pronoun: 30.0 22.412803532 134% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 35.0 30.3222958057 115% => OK
Nominalization: 2.0 5.01324503311 40% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1688.0 1373.03311258 123% => OK
No of words: 340.0 270.72406181 126% => OK
Chars per words: 4.96470588235 5.08290768461 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.29407602571 4.04702891845 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.55557434007 2.5805825403 99% => OK
Unique words: 159.0 145.348785872 109% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.467647058824 0.540411800872 87% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 503.1 419.366225166 120% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.51434878587 198% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 13.0662251656 130% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 52.0325290856 49.2860985944 106% => OK
Chars per sentence: 99.2941176471 110.228320801 90% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.0 21.698381199 92% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.41176470588 7.06452816374 77% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 9.0 4.19205298013 215% => Less language errors wanted.
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 4.45695364238 67% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.27373068433 187% => 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: 11.9 13.3589403974 89% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 59.64 53.8541721854 111% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.0289183223 90% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.49 12.2367328918 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.11 8.42419426049 96% => OK
difficult_words: 75.0 63.6247240618 118% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 10.7273730684 79% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
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.