In 1912 a bookseller named Wilfrid M. Voynich acquired a beautifully illustrated handwritten book (manuscript) written on vellum (vellum is a material that was used for writing before the introduction of paper). The “Voynich manuscript,” as it became known, resembles manuscripts written in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. However, it is written in a completely unknown script. To date, no one has been able to decode the script and understand the book’s content. Several theories have been proposed to explain the origin of the Voynich manuscript.
One theory is that the manuscript is a genuine work on some scientific or magical subject composed in a complex secret code. Anthony Ascham, a sixteenth-century physician and botanist, has been identified as a possible author, since many plant illustrations in the Voynich manuscript are quite similar to those in Ascham’s book on medicinal plants, A Little Herbal, published in 1550.
According to some other theories, the manuscript is really a fake and its text has no real meaning. For example, it has been proposed the manuscript was created by Edward Kelley, a sixteenth-century personality who extracted money from nobles across Europe by pretending to have magical powers. Kelley may have created the manuscript as a fake magical book to sell to a wealthy noble. He used a made-up alphabet in a completely random order. It looks like a book of magical secrets, but there is no meaningful underlying text.
Another theory is that the manuscript is actually a modern fake created by Wilfrid M. Voynich himself. As an antique book dealer, Voynich certainly had the knowledge of what old manuscripts should look like and could have created a fake one. Perhaps Voynich’s plan was to sell the fake as a mysterious old book if he received an attractive offer.
The reading and lecture are both about the accuracy of the main goal of “Voynich manuscript” which was written on vellum that was predominant material before the introduction of paper. While the author of the reading states there is a possibility that the book is a genuine work on scientific or magical subjects, is really fake, or is a modern fake created by Wilfrid M. Voynich, the lecturer repudiates these reasons. The lecturer casts doubts on the three main points made by the author by providing three reasons.
To begin with, even though the author holds that the manuscript probably is a genuine work related to the scientific or magical subjects which is written in a codified secretly, the lecturer rebuffs this idea. The lecturer says that Anthony Ascham’s book is referring to the common materials such as common plants, their origins, or the sources hence it is unlikely that such a book is written in a secret language.
Secondly, although the reading passage suggests that the manuscript is really a fake as well as proposes that this book was written by Edward Kelly to beguile other people, the lecturer disagrees with the statement. He discusses that creating such a book was so time-consuming as well as there were other convenient ways to deceive others. Thus, this idea is not logical.
Last but not least, in the reading passage, the arguer claims that the manuscript is a fake which is created by Wilfrid M. Voynich himself due to his profound knowledge to write such a book. However, the lecture elucidates, according to the analyzing related to the book’s ilk, the manuscript has around 400 years old. Thus, it seems fair to conclude that the book was not written by Wilfrid M. Voynich.
In conclusion, whereas the author and the lecturer are both buttress their positions about the possible meaning or subject of “Voynich manuscript”, the lecturer challenges effectively the three main points which are made by the author.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 422, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...a book is written in a secret language. Secondly, although the reading passage s...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, hence, however, if, really, second, secondly, so, thus, well, whereas, while, in conclusion, such as, as well as, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 10.4613686534 210% => Less to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 0.0 5.04856512141 0% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 7.30242825607 110% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 12.0772626932 116% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 22.412803532 94% => OK
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: 1658.0 1373.03311258 121% => OK
No of words: 328.0 270.72406181 121% => OK
Chars per words: 5.05487804878 5.08290768461 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.25567506705 4.04702891845 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.84979935004 2.5805825403 110% => OK
Unique words: 158.0 145.348785872 109% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.481707317073 0.540411800872 89% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 499.5 419.366225166 119% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.25165562914 240% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 21.2450331126 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 67.5856599329 49.2860985944 137% => OK
Chars per sentence: 118.428571429 110.228320801 107% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.4285714286 21.698381199 108% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.42857142857 7.06452816374 133% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => 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: 0.304590693171 0.272083759551 112% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.106236403597 0.0996497079465 107% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0994786507745 0.0662205650399 150% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.178451108509 0.162205337803 110% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0761409760581 0.0443174109184 172% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.1 13.3589403974 106% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 56.59 53.8541721854 105% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 11.0289183223 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.31 12.2367328918 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.63 8.42419426049 102% => OK
difficult_words: 80.0 63.6247240618 126% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 10.7273730684 107% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.498013245 107% => 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.