The reading and the lecture are both on the authenticity of an artist of a particular painting. The article mentions that although the painting depicts the style and representation of Rembrandt, there are problems due to which it cannot be attributed to be his piece of art. The lecturer completely challenges this claim made by the author. She is of the opinion that thorough examination refutes these claims and the coming three paragraphs explain their viewpoints.
Firstly, the author feels that there is an inconsistency in the dressing of the character. He mentions that the woman wears both a white linen and a luxurious fur collar which contradicts the monetary status of the character and seems very unlikely to be an error made by the artist. The lecturer challenges this argument and states that on X-Ray analysis of the pigments of fur collar, it is evident that it was an addition over the original work by the artist. Additionally, she also mentions that such additions are made to increase the value or to depict an aristocratic woman.
Secondly, the writer points out that the painting lacks behind in the elements of light and shadow and does not seem to blend together in entirety. The article also mentions that this representation contradicts the mastery of skills depicted by the painter. However, the lecturer rebuts this claim by stating that when the fur collar was removed, the painting originally consisted of a light colored cloth. She elaborates on this by saying that with the light color, the painting illuminates and gives a realistic depiction of the skills of the artist.
Finally, the author posits that the examination of the back of the painting revealed that it consisted of several wooden blocks to be glued together as a panel which seemed at odds with the style of the artist. In contrast, the lecturer states that it was the addition of the fur collar which fused the several wooden pieces so as to enlarge the panel and enhance its value. She also brings out to the notice that the painting originally was made on a single wooden panel of a particular wood which had also been used by Rembrandt on another painting.
Consequently, the lecturer does not agree to the claims made by the author and is of the opinion that the painting is an art by Rembrandt.
- A nation should require all of its students to study the same national curriculum until they enter the college 66
- TPO-18: students are more influenced by their teachers than by their friends 73
- The Reading:Altruism is a type of behavior in which an animal sacrifices its own interest for that of another animal or group of animals. Altruism is the opposite of selfishness; individuals performing altruistic acts gain nothing for themselves. Examples 73
- It is more important to keep your old friends than to make new friends. 70
- Torreya Taxifolia tree decline and migration 3
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 276, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...t be attributed to be his piece of art. The lecturer completely challenges this cla...
^^^
Line 7, column 326, Rule ID: SO_AS_TO[1]
Message: Use simply 'to'
Suggestion: to
...r which fused the several wooden pieces so as to enlarge the panel and enhance its value...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, consequently, finally, first, firstly, however, second, secondly, so, then, as to, in contrast
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 10.4613686534 163% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 1.0 5.04856512141 20% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 7.30242825607 164% => OK
Relative clauses : 22.0 12.0772626932 182% => OK
Pronoun: 35.0 22.412803532 156% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 58.0 30.3222958057 191% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 5.01324503311 180% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1918.0 1373.03311258 140% => OK
No of words: 394.0 270.72406181 146% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.86802030457 5.08290768461 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.45527027702 4.04702891845 110% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.70155221963 2.5805825403 105% => OK
Unique words: 173.0 145.348785872 119% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.439086294416 0.540411800872 81% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 592.2 419.366225166 141% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 3.25607064018 184% => OK
Article: 13.0 8.23620309051 158% => 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: 16.0 13.0662251656 122% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 21.2450331126 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 38.8585174061 49.2860985944 79% => OK
Chars per sentence: 119.875 110.228320801 109% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.625 21.698381199 113% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.5625 7.06452816374 93% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => OK
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: 0.144528658031 0.272083759551 53% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0502498565771 0.0996497079465 50% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0609432323188 0.0662205650399 92% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0988498281083 0.162205337803 61% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0501139652751 0.0443174109184 113% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.8 13.3589403974 103% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 55.58 53.8541721854 103% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 11.0289183223 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.26 12.2367328918 92% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.07 8.42419426049 96% => OK
difficult_words: 81.0 63.6247240618 127% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 10.7273730684 79% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 10.498013245 110% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
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.