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.
Summarize the points made in the lecture, being sure to explain how they respond to the specific points made in the reading passage.
The text and the lecture offer two opposing views on the accuracy of the Cheavlier de Seinglat’s memoir. While the text list reasons to be suspicious of the book’s details, the professor counters those specific points and supports the memoir’s accuracy. She uses other historical information about the Chevaler and his writing to come to her conclusions.
First, the professor refutes the idea that the Chevalier was poor. She states that he was actually wealthy, but his wealth was in property. Although the passage uses his loans as a sign of proverty, the professor believes they were only necessary because the Chevalier needed time to convert his property to cash.
Next, she says that the Chevalier’s conversations with Voltaire were probably based on notes. After each conversation he wrote everything in a journal. Although the reading passage doubts the truth of those conversations, the professor asserts that the memoir was reasonably accurate becasue witnesses said that the Chevalier referred to journals while writing the book.
Finaly, there is a huge difference between the way that Chevalier escape from prison. The lecturer claimed that even the people in there have powerfull connection with the jailers, it was hard to escape from it. While the text tell that he bribe many people to set him free, the lecturer state the fact about the day after Chevalier escape from them. It told that after that incident occur, the prison celling had to be repaired.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 95, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “After” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
... Voltaire were probably based on notes. After each conversation he wrote everything i...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, first, if, so, while
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.4613686534 96% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 0.0 5.04856512141 0% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 7.30242825607 55% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 29.0 22.412803532 129% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 29.0 30.3222958057 96% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1251.0 1373.03311258 91% => OK
No of words: 241.0 270.72406181 89% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.19087136929 5.08290768461 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.94007293032 4.04702891845 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.65416844105 2.5805825403 103% => OK
Unique words: 143.0 145.348785872 98% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.593360995851 0.540411800872 110% => OK
syllable_count: 376.2 419.366225166 90% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 1.25165562914 399% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 45.1414607572 49.2860985944 92% => OK
Chars per sentence: 96.2307692308 110.228320801 87% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.5384615385 21.698381199 85% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.69230769231 7.06452816374 38% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 4.45695364238 67% => 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: 0.224831787004 0.272083759551 83% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0744566714069 0.0996497079465 75% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0414556649628 0.0662205650399 63% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.129057665451 0.162205337803 80% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0504595577103 0.0443174109184 114% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.3 13.3589403974 92% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 53.8541721854 99% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 11.0289183223 93% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.82 12.2367328918 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.72 8.42419426049 104% => OK
difficult_words: 64.0 63.6247240618 101% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.2008830022 116% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 81.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.5 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.