The reading and the lecture are both about the particular book, written on vellum in the past, coded for uncertain reasons. The author of the reading mentioned some reasons in order to state the purpose of writing the book while the lecturer casts doubt on the claims made in the article for the following explanations.
First of all, the author points out that this book was written by scientists and it was coded by them. It is mentioned that the author of the book is referred to the well-known botanist, called Anthony Ascham, because of the same context of the book and Anthony's articles. This point is challenged by the lecturer. He thinks that Anthony's publishes did not convey some important secrets persuading him to code it. Moreover, the whole content of his book was about plants based on some valid references.
Secondly, fake and magical contents have been regarded as the fundamental things helping his writers to sell it in the market. The lecturer refutes this argument. He contends, in that time selling fake books must not have noticed as hard works; consequently, a large number of magical books were sold conveniently.
Eventually, establishing modern fake book could be considered as the other noticeable goal of its writer. The author of the reading says that in order to sell this book, Voyaniche wanted to produce a mystery book in relation to attracting clients. The lecturer, on the other hands, posits because of its old ink and other obsolete materials of this book; definitely, the mentioned book was created a century before the time he was living.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 260, Rule ID: LARGE_NUMBER_OF[1]
Message: Specify a number, remove phrase, or simply use 'many' or 'numerous'
Suggestion: many; numerous
...ve noticed as hard works; consequently, a large number of magical books were sold conveniently. ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
consequently, first, moreover, second, secondly, so, well, while, first of all, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 10.4613686534 115% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 5.04856512141 40% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 5.0 12.0772626932 41% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 23.0 22.412803532 103% => OK
Preposition: 38.0 30.3222958057 125% => 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: 1324.0 1373.03311258 96% => OK
No of words: 267.0 270.72406181 99% => OK
Chars per words: 4.95880149813 5.08290768461 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.04229324003 4.04702891845 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.61131159091 2.5805825403 101% => OK
Unique words: 147.0 145.348785872 101% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.550561797753 0.540411800872 102% => OK
syllable_count: 403.2 419.366225166 96% => 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: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 47.9541200851 49.2860985944 97% => OK
Chars per sentence: 101.846153846 110.228320801 92% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.5384615385 21.698381199 95% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.46153846154 7.06452816374 106% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 4.33554083885 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 4.45695364238 179% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.27373068433 70% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0 0.272083759551 0% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0 0.0996497079465 0% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0662205650399 0% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0 0.162205337803 0% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0443174109184 0% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.2 13.3589403974 91% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 59.64 53.8541721854 111% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.0289183223 90% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.49 12.2367328918 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.65 8.42419426049 103% => OK
difficult_words: 68.0 63.6247240618 107% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 10.7273730684 121% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 3.33333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.