The reading and the lecture are both contradicting with each other, in terms of the origin of the Voynich manuscript. The author of the article presented three theories to explain the origin of the Voynich manuscript. However, the professor casts doubt about the claim mentioned in the article and refutes all the theories presented in the passage.
First of all, according to the reading, Anthony Ascham could be the author of the book who is a physician and botanist, since the description of the plant in the manuscript is similar to his other book's medicinal plant. On the contrary, the speaker negates the argument presented in the passage. Furthermore, he discusses that Anthony was an ordinary physician and scientist. Hence, there are fewer chances that he had complex information regarding the herbal plant. Thus, he cannot be the original writer, since he could not write the complex code in the manuscript.
Secondly, the author posits that the manuscript could be written by the great magician named, Edward Kelley, in sixteenth-century. He might use the complex alphabet in unorganized order to present it as a magical book in order to sell it to wealthy people. Although the lecturer refutes this by asserting that it was quite easy to fool people in sixteenth-century. Hence, Edward could not put so much efforts to turn the book into a complex version.
Finally, it is mentioned in the article that M. Voynich could have created the fake book since he had some knowledge of the old manuscript. On the other hand, the speaker believes that the vellum and the ink, found in the manuscript were around 400 years back. However, the Voynich might able to get vellum to create the fake book but there is no chance that he found the ink which was used before 400 years. Hence, he cannot be the original writer.
- TPO 21(independent)Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? For success in a future job, the ability to relate well to people is more important than studying hard in school. 80
- TPO 35- 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 73
- TPO 33:Agree/Disagree:When teachers assign projects on which students must work together, students will learn much more effectively than ask them to do alone. 70
- Tpo 44Some people believe that when busy parents do not have a lot of time to spend with their children, the best use of that time is to have fun playing games or sports. Other believe that it is best to use that time doing things together that are relate 78
- TPO35 3
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 257, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “Although” 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.
... in order to sell it to wealthy people. Although the lecturer refutes this by asserting ...
^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 396, Rule ID: MUCH_COUNTABLE[1]
Message: Use 'many' with countable nouns.
Suggestion: many
...century. Hence, Edward could not put so much efforts to turn the book into a complex...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, furthermore, hence, however, regarding, second, secondly, so, thus, first of all, on the contrary, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 10.4613686534 134% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 5.04856512141 178% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 12.0772626932 75% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 21.0 22.412803532 94% => OK
Preposition: 43.0 30.3222958057 142% => 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: 1515.0 1373.03311258 110% => OK
No of words: 310.0 270.72406181 115% => OK
Chars per words: 4.88709677419 5.08290768461 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.19604776685 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.71259635409 2.5805825403 105% => OK
Unique words: 153.0 145.348785872 105% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.493548387097 0.540411800872 91% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 459.9 419.366225166 110% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.25165562914 240% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 2.5761589404 272% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 13.0662251656 130% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 39.7475598259 49.2860985944 81% => OK
Chars per sentence: 89.1176470588 110.228320801 81% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.2352941176 21.698381199 84% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.05882352941 7.06452816374 114% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.27373068433 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.184717849947 0.272083759551 68% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0582969315843 0.0996497079465 59% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0544991158928 0.0662205650399 82% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.115126330224 0.162205337803 71% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0480155850092 0.0443174109184 108% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.7 13.3589403974 80% => 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: 11.08 12.2367328918 91% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.69 8.42419426049 91% => OK
difficult_words: 62.0 63.6247240618 97% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.