tpo8
The author and lecturer offer two opposing views on the accuracy of the memoir wrote by Chevalier de Seingalt. While, the reading passage lists some points such as the loan from the merchant, the possibility of errors in the conversation phrases, and the validity his escape from the Italian prison, as the main skeptical points, which cast doubt on the accuracy of this memoir, the professor counters this specific points and presents some clues to call into the question for the information in the article.
First of all, the professor refutes that the loan from a Swiss merchant is the indicator of invalidity of this memoir, which in the reading part this loan is named as one of the factors challenged the Chevalier's Wealthy status. The lecturer states that both of the information about the wealth status and loan are valid. However, the main point is that the Chevalier's wealth was not solely the money, he owned other valuable stuff which was required adequate time to alter them to the money and in this duration he asked for help from merchant to be accountable for whole expenses. Thus, the loan cannot be the evidence of the fake memoir
Next, the text and the lectures have the disjunction about the validity of conversation among him and Voltaire. As it is mentioned in the passage the conversation was written a long duration after their meeting; consequently, there is some doubt on the accuracy of the phrases. The lecturer rebuts the truth of this claim. As he asserts, the Chevalier took note after each meeting; moreover, based on the witness’s testimony, who lived concurrently with him, when he started to wrote his conversation, he referred to those notes and the journal.
Finally, the professor argues that the Chevalier's escape was for the sake of his friends' power for offering the bribe. Meanwhile, the passage presumes this fact as one of the factors which the accuracy of this memoir. Based on the lecturer's evidence, the contemporary prisoners had more powerful friends who can offer this bribe. In addition, there is a report of ceiling fix exactly after his escape, which illustrates the problem with ceiling and feasibility of drilling.
That how effectively the professor challenges the claims made in the article.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-08-09 | mahnazmir | 70 | view |
| 2018-08-03 | Nima1993 | 3 | view |
| 2016-07-22 | Gh.Ne | 73 | view |
| 2016-03-07 | younes.tatari | 80 | view |
| 2015-09-10 | Samar 1984 | 70 | view |
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement The government should spend more money on improving access to the Internet than on public transportation 80
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement Young people should try several different jobs before they take a long term career 35
- Young people should be encouraged to pursue long-term, realistic goals rather than seek immediate fame and recognition.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoning for t 58
- 1.Scandals are useful because they focus our attention on problems in ways that no speaker or reformer ever could.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and supporting your position, b 70
- Some people claim that you can tell whether a nation is great by looking at the achievements of its rulers, artists, or scientists. Others argue that the surest indicator of a great nation is, in fact, the general welfare of all its people.Write a respons 62
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 189, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...es this fact as one of the factors which the accuracy of this memoir. Based on th...
^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['but', 'consequently', 'finally', 'first', 'however', 'if', 'moreover', 'so', 'thus', 'while', 'as for', 'in addition', 'such as', 'first of all']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.282973621103 0.261695866417 108% => OK
Verbs: 0.112709832134 0.158904122519 71% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0431654676259 0.0723426182421 60% => OK
Adverbs: 0.031175059952 0.0435111971325 72% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0335731414868 0.0277247811725 121% => OK
Prepositions: 0.143884892086 0.128828473217 112% => OK
Participles: 0.0215827338129 0.0370669169778 58% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.64599196729 2.5805825403 103% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0143884892086 0.0208969081088 69% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.00154638098197 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.182254196643 0.128158765124 142% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.00479616306954 0.0158828679856 30% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0215827338129 0.0114777025283 188% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2264.0 1645.83664459 138% => OK
No of words: 377.0 271.125827815 139% => OK
Chars per words: 6.00530503979 6.08160592843 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.4064143971 4.04852973271 109% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.342175066313 0.374372842146 91% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.278514588859 0.287516216867 97% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.212201591512 0.187439937562 113% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.114058355438 0.113142543107 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.64599196729 2.5805825403 103% => OK
Unique words: 186.0 145.348785872 128% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.493368700265 0.539623497131 91% => OK
Word variations: 52.7217014339 53.8517498576 98% => OK
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0529801325 107% => OK
Sentence length: 26.9285714286 21.7502111507 124% => OK
Sentence length SD: 88.6787656059 49.3711431718 180% => OK
Chars per sentence: 161.714285714 132.220823453 122% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.9285714286 21.7502111507 124% => OK
Discourse Markers: 1.0 0.878197800319 114% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 3.39072847682 29% => OK
Readability: 54.7800303145 50.5018328374 108% => OK
Elegance: 2.52702702703 1.90840788429 132% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0 0.549887131256 0% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.151264864244 0.142949733639 106% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.100243127529 0.0787303798458 127% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.708359606 0.631733273073 112% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.128998031368 0.139662658121 92% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0 0.266732575781 0% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.103435571967 0% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.555587100162 0.414875509568 134% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.107201087321 0.0530846634433 202% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0 0.40443939384 0% => The content is off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0528353158467 0% => Paragraphs are similar to each other.
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 4.33554083885 161% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.26048565121 70% => OK
Positive topic words: 7.0 3.49668874172 200% => OK
Negative topic words: 3.0 3.62251655629 83% => OK
Neutral topic words: 2.0 3.1766004415 63% => OK
Total topic words: 12.0 10.2958057395 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Less content wanted. Write the essay in 30 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.