Toward the end of his life, the Chevalier de Seingalt (1725−1798) wrote a long memoir recounting his life and adventures. The Chevalier was a somewhat controversial figure, but since he met many famous people, including kings and writers, his memoir has become a valuable historical source about European society in the eighteenth century. However, some critics have raised doubts about the accuracy of the memoir. They claim that the Chevalier distorted or invented many events in the memoir to make his life
seem more exciting and glamorous than it really was. For example, in his memoir the Chevalier claims that while living in Switzerland, he was very wealthy, and it is known that he spent a great deal of money there on parties and gambling. However, evidence has
recently surfaced that the Chevalier borrowed considerable sums of money from a Swiss merchant. Critics thus argue that if the Chevalier had really been very rich, he would not have needed to borrow money. Critics are also skeptical about the accuracy of the conversations that the Chevalier records in the memoir between himself and the famous writer Voltaire. No one doubts that the Chevalier and Voltaire met and conversed. However, critics complain that the memoir cannot possibly capture these conversations accurately, because it was written many years after the conversations occurred. Critics point out that it is impossible to remember exact phrases from extended conversations held many years earlier. Critics have also questioned the memoir’s account of the Chevalier’s escape from a notorious prison in Venice, Italy. He claims to have escaped the Venetian prison by using a piece of metal to make a hole in the ceiling and climbing through the roof. Critics claim that while such a daring escape makes for enjoyable reading, it is more likely that the Chevalier’s jailers were bribed to free him. They point out that the Chevalier had a number of politically well-connected friends in Venice who could have offered a bribe
The reading and the lecture are both about the accuracy of Chevalier's memoir. The author of the reading puts forth the idea that the memoir was changed and modified by himself. The lecturer challenges the claim made by the author. He is of the opinion that all the reasonings by the author are faulty.
To begin with, the author argues that Chevalier was not as wealthy as mentioned in his memoir. The article mentions that he borrowed money from Swiss merchant, which reveals that he was needy. This specific claim is challenged by the lecturer. She describes that Chevalier had a lot of assets which he needed to convert into money to spend. Additionally, she reasons that as it takes a bit of time, he thought to spend on the parties by borrowing some money in the waiting time.
Secondly, the writer suggests that no memory of conversation can be remembered as accurately as Chevalier memorized them. In the article, it is stated that he remebered each phrases after so many years of passing. The lecturer, however, refutes this by mentioning that Chevalier wrote down each of the conversation at the night of the conversatioon. He elaborates on this by bringing up the point that there were lot of people present there who confirmed that he actually wrote those down and kept them with him till he wrote those down.
Finally, the author posits that Chevalier's memoir of escaping jail of Venice is also a lie. Moreover, in the article, it is said that he could have bribed the authority with some assets to escape the jail. In contrast, the lecturer's position is that there were other powerful and rich prisoners in the jail who couldn't escape the jail by bribing. She notes that there was a repairing required in the ceiling of the room where Chevalier was kept, after Chevalier left. So, it is quite clear that Chevalier escaped the jail by making hole in the roof as he written in the memoir.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-01-10 | Vivekh0514 | 80 | view |
| 2020-01-09 | Opak Pulup | 71 | view |
| 2019-12-30 | jewel | 85 | view |
| 2019-12-12 | yraj | 88 | view |
| 2019-12-02 | shingwa | 80 | view |
- In 1995 a microscopic fungus called phytophthora ramorum, or P. ramorum, was first detected in the forests of the western United States. P. ramorum infects trees and causes particularly serious damage in oak trees: in many infected oaks, leaves wither rap 71
- TPO 36 Integrated WritingHail pieces of ice that form and fall from clouds instead of snow or rain has always been a problem for farmers in some areas of the United States Hail pellets can fall with great force and destroy crops in the field Over th 12
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? In the past, young people depended too much on their parents to make decisions for them; today young people are better able to make decisions about their own lives. Use specific reasons and examples t 70
- Summarise the points made in the lecture, being sure to explain how they cast doubt on specific points made in the reading passage. 3
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Teachers were more appreciated and valued by society in the past than they are nowadays. Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer. 70
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 178, 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.
...ir was changed and modified by himself. The lecturer challenges the claim made by t...
^^^
Line 13, column 312, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: couldn't
...rful and rich prisoners in the jail who couldnt escape the jail by bribing. She notes t...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, finally, however, if, moreover, second, secondly, so, in contrast, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 10.4613686534 163% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 5.04856512141 40% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 7.30242825607 55% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 22.0 12.0772626932 182% => OK
Pronoun: 45.0 22.412803532 201% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 52.0 30.3222958057 171% => 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: 1581.0 1373.03311258 115% => OK
No of words: 334.0 270.72406181 123% => OK
Chars per words: 4.73353293413 5.08290768461 93% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.27500489853 4.04702891845 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.51386666699 2.5805825403 97% => OK
Unique words: 171.0 145.348785872 118% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.511976047904 0.540411800872 95% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 486.9 419.366225166 116% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 3.25607064018 307% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 13.0662251656 138% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 32.3799301504 49.2860985944 66% => OK
Chars per sentence: 87.8333333333 110.228320801 80% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.5555555556 21.698381199 86% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.33333333333 7.06452816374 75% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 4.33554083885 161% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.27373068433 140% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.207998029602 0.272083759551 76% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0690567865368 0.0996497079465 69% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0589742978105 0.0662205650399 89% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.121421777339 0.162205337803 75% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0172847476056 0.0443174109184 39% => 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: 10.1 13.3589403974 76% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 61.67 53.8541721854 115% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 11.0289183223 83% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.15 12.2367328918 83% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.07 8.42419426049 96% => OK
difficult_words: 75.0 63.6247240618 118% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 5.5 10.7273730684 51% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
Rates: 71.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 21.5 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.