James Austen portrait
The reading and the lecture talked about James Austen. The reading believed that James Austen is the person in professional painting. However, the lecturer holds that the three evidence presented in the reading are doubtful.
First of all, the reading stated that the Austen family confirmed that the girl in the painting is James Austen. Meanwhile, the portrait was published 72 years after Austen's death, according to the lecture her relative never saw her in person. Therefore, the family members could be wrong.
Secondly, although the reading firmly believed that Austen's full-length portrait was of her. Comparatively, the characteristics of the portrait are so similar to those of the portrait that Cassandra sketched when Austen was an adult. The lecturer argues that whoever is in the portrait is not Austen. Furthermore, the Austen family was big and Austen had relatives the same age as her, so the subject might be one of them.
Thirdly, the reading claimed that Austen's family must have hired Ozias Humphrey since he was a professional painter when Austen was a teenager. There was also evidence that proved Ozias’s work style and links. The lecturer contradicted this point by providing another piece of evidence. A stamp on the back of the portrait was a piece of canvas that began to sell in London when Austen was 26 years old. Consequently, the girl in the portrait is not assertive, that could be James Austen.
Overall, the speaker provided three pieces of evidence contradicting the writer's theories, implying that the teenager in the portrait is not James Austen.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2021-04-10 | Uhernandes95 | 60 | view |
- Some people trust their first impressions about a person s character because they believe these judgments are generally correct Other people do not judge a person s character quickly because they believe first impressions are often wrong Compare and contr 83
- If you could travel back in time to meet a famous person from history what person would you like to meet Use specific reasons and examples to support your choice 60
- Traditional encyclopaedias vs online 60
- Some people choose friends who are different from themselves Others choose friends who are similar to themselves Compare the advantages of having friends who are different from you with the advantages of having friends who are similar to you Which kind of 70
- Sea Otters decline 78
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 283, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...refore the family members could be wrong Secondly although the reading firmly bel...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 414, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... her so the subject might be one of them Thirdly the reading claimed that Austens...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 480, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...not assertive that could be James Austen Overall the speaker provided three piece...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, consequently, first, furthermore, however, second, secondly, so, therefore, third, thirdly, while, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 10.4613686534 191% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 7.30242825607 41% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 15.0 12.0772626932 124% => OK
Pronoun: 20.0 22.412803532 89% => OK
Preposition: 25.0 30.3222958057 82% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1308.0 1373.03311258 95% => OK
No of words: 260.0 270.72406181 96% => OK
Chars per words: 5.03076923077 5.08290768461 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.01553427287 4.04702891845 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.56426281551 2.5805825403 99% => OK
Unique words: 123.0 145.348785872 85% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.473076923077 0.540411800872 88% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 398.7 419.366225166 95% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 0.0 3.25607064018 0% => OK
Article: 1.0 8.23620309051 12% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 0.0 2.5761589404 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 1.0 13.0662251656 8% => 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: 260.0 21.2450331126 1224% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 0.0 49.2860985944 0% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 1308.0 110.228320801 1187% => Less chars_per_sentence wanted.
Words per sentence: 260.0 21.698381199 1198% => Less words per sentence wanted.
Discourse Markers: 117.0 7.06452816374 1656% => Less transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 0.0 4.33554083885 0% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 4.45695364238 22% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.27373068433 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.511350851358 0.272083759551 188% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.511350851358 0.0996497079465 513% => Sentence topic similarity is high.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0662205650399 0% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.328245231768 0.162205337803 202% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0417336676712 0.0443174109184 94% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 132.3 13.3589403974 990% => Automated_readability_index is high.
flesch_reading_ease: -183.96 53.8541721854 -342% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 0.0 5.55761589404 0% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 103.5 11.0289183223 938% => Flesch kincaid grade is high.
coleman_liau_index: 13.37 12.2367328918 109% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 19.99 8.42419426049 237% => Dale chall readability score is high.
difficult_words: 57.0 63.6247240618 90% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 54.0 10.7273730684 503% => Linsear_write_formula is high.
gunning_fog: 106.0 10.498013245 1010% => Gunning_fog is high.
text_standard: 54.0 11.2008830022 482% => The average readability is very high. Good job!
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 60.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 18.0 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.