Chevalier memoirs' accuracy
The article refers to the memoir of Chevalier de Seingalt and discuss about it’s accuracy in detail. Writer propose that the details mentioned in the memoir are inaccurate, while the lecturer disagree. She thinks that all such details are correct and show exact history of Europe.
First, the writer doubts the credibility of the memoir by referring to an instance when Chevalier borrowed mony from Swiss merchant, although he mentioned that he was very wealthy. The lecturer explains that, Chevalier was indeed a wealthy person and most of his wealth was in assets, which could have taken 2-3 days to come in the form of spending money. So, according to her, borrowing money from merchants does not indicate that Chevelier was not wealthy and thus his statement about wealth is very true.
Second, the passage notes that the conversations mentioned in the memoir between Chevalier and Voltaire can not be possibly accurate, as it was written many years after their meeting. The lecturer rebuts this argument. She explains that Chevalier has written in his memoir that he recorded their conversation every night and kept all those records and while writing the memoir, he refers to those records. Also many witness has confirmed that Cheveliear referred to his old notes while documenting his memoir. So in her defence, all those conversation between Chevalier and Voltaire were very accurate.
The passage also question his escape from the Vanice prison. It state that he bribed the jailers for his escapae as he had many political friend in Venice who could have helped him. On the other hand, the lecturer disagree from this statement. She refers to the old Vanice government document regarding repairing the ceiling of the Chevalier room. She further mentioned that there were other more powerful people in the jail, so it was not easy to simple bribe for escape. In her opinion Chevalier did escape from the jails using metal piece.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 71, Rule ID: ABOUT_ITS_NN[25]
Message: Did you mean 'about its accuracy'?
Suggestion: about its accuracy
...ir of Chevalier de Seingalt and discuss about it’s accuracy in detail. Writer propose that the deta...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 109, Rule ID: MASS_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Consider using third-person verb forms for singular and mass nouns: 'proposes'.
Suggestion: proposes
...s about it’s accuracy in detail. Writer propose that the details mentioned in the memoi...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 407, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Also,
...the memoir, he refers to those records. Also many witness has confirmed that Cheveli...
^^^^
Line 3, column 412, Rule ID: MANY_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun witness seems to be countable; consider using: 'many witnesses'.
Suggestion: many witnesses
...emoir, he refers to those records. Also many witness has confirmed that Cheveliear referred ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 534, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'this conversation' or 'those conversations'?
Suggestion: this conversation; those conversations
...ting his memoir. So in her defence, all those conversation between Chevalier and Voltaire were ver...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 64, Rule ID: IT_VBZ[1]
Message: Did you mean 'states'?
Suggestion: states
...n his escape from the Vanice prison. It state that he bribed the jailers for his esca...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, regarding, second, so, thus, while, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 15.1003584229 79% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 9.8082437276 31% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 13.8261648746 58% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 14.0 11.0286738351 127% => OK
Pronoun: 43.0 43.0788530466 100% => OK
Preposition: 37.0 52.1666666667 71% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 8.0752688172 124% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1624.0 1977.66487455 82% => OK
No of words: 321.0 407.700716846 79% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.05919003115 4.8611393121 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.23278547379 4.48103885553 94% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.43585819567 2.67179642975 91% => OK
Unique words: 175.0 212.727598566 82% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.545171339564 0.524837075471 104% => OK
syllable_count: 500.4 618.680645161 81% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.51630824373 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 9.59856630824 63% => OK
Article: 7.0 3.08781362007 227% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 3.0 3.51792114695 85% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.86738351254 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.94265232975 61% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 20.6003584229 83% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 18.0 20.1344086022 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 45.9532634548 48.9658058833 94% => OK
Chars per sentence: 95.5294117647 100.406767564 95% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.8823529412 20.6045352989 92% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.17647058824 5.45110844103 77% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 5.5376344086 108% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 11.8709677419 67% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 3.85842293907 78% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.88709677419 123% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.275851482004 0.236089414692 117% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0877249427016 0.076458572812 115% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.105538159867 0.0737576698707 143% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.171814026796 0.150856017488 114% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0867883792236 0.0645574589148 134% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.8 11.7677419355 100% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 58.1214874552 92% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.10430107527 51% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 10.1575268817 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.07 10.9000537634 111% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.27 8.01818996416 103% => OK
difficult_words: 76.0 86.8835125448 87% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.002688172 105% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.0537634409 92% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 10.247311828 117% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
We are expecting: No. of Words: 350 while No. of Different Words: 200
Better to have 5 paragraphs with 3 arguments. And try always support/against one side but compare two sides, like this:
para 1: introduction
para 2: reason 1. address both of the views presented for reason 1
para 3: reason 2. address both of the views presented for reason 2
para 4: reason 3. address both of the views presented for reason 3
para 5: conclusion.
So how to find out those reasons. There is a formula:
reasons == advantages or
reasons == disadvantages
for example, we can always apply 'save time', 'save/make money', 'find a job', 'make friends', 'get more information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.
or we can apply 'waste time', 'waste money', 'no job', 'make bad friends', 'get bad information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.
Rates: 70.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 21.0 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.