Chevalier de Seingalt
The lecturer deems Chevalier's memoir as accurate and reliable, unlike otherwise stated in the reading passage. She rebukes the points made in passage questioning the reliability of the memoirs one by one.
Firstly she counters the point that Chevalier must have been poor since he had to borrow money from a merchant. She explains that borrowing money does not necessarily translate into being poor. Cheveliar was very affluent person and was involved in luxuries such as parties and gambling, which require a lot of money. Chevelier had money in terms of gold, land and other assets which take time to convert into money. Which is why he had to borrow money from the merchant.
The second point made in the passage is that Chevalier wrote about his meeting with Voltaire years after the meeting actually took place and hence the details of the conversation must have been obscured and cannot be termed as reliable. The lecturer counters this by saying that it has been confirmed by witnesses that Chevalier used to takes notes from his conversation with Voltaire each night. While writing his memoir, Chevelier referred to those notes and hence the details provided in his memoir regarding his meeting with Voltaire can be completely trusted.
The third point questioning the reliability of Chevelier's memoir mentioned in the passage is that the incidence of Chevelier escaping a prison in Venice is a false claim since Chevelier has good friendship with the guards and he must have bribed them to release him rather than making a heroic escape. In response to this, the lecturer explains that other prisoners were known to have more powerful friends than Chevelier but they were not able to escape the prison. Moreover, old Venician documents show that after Chevelier's escape from the prison, the ceiling of his cell needed to be repaired. Thus, the lecturer poses a counter question, if Chevelier did not escape as mentioned in the memoir, then what was the need to repair the ceiling?
In conclusion, the lecturer counters the argument made in the passage regarding the reliability of Chevelier's memoir by providing a different perspective and additional facts which were not considered previously.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-12-02 | Cursed God | 80 | view |
- Chevalier de Seingalt 3
- A true university education encompasses far more than the narrow, specialized study of a single discipline. Only through exploring the broad spectrum of liberal arts courses can students become truly learned. 50
- People who make decisions based on emotion and justify those decisions with logic afterwards are poor decision makers. 58
- Educational institutions should actively encourage their students to choose fields of study in which jobs are plentiful.//Write a response in which you discuss your views on the policy and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing an 58
- All too often, companies hire outside consultants to suggest ways for the company to operate more efficiently. If companies were to spend more time to listening to their own employees, such consultants would be unnecessary 75
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 338, Rule ID: TO_NON_BASE[1]
Message: The verb after "to" should be in the base form: 'take'.
Suggestion: take
...med by witnesses that Chevalier used to takes notes from his conversation with Voltai...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, first, firstly, hence, if, moreover, regarding, second, so, then, third, thus, while, in conclusion, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 10.4613686534 163% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 7.30242825607 137% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 22.412803532 120% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 52.0 30.3222958057 171% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1868.0 1373.03311258 136% => OK
No of words: 362.0 270.72406181 134% => OK
Chars per words: 5.16022099448 5.08290768461 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.36191444098 4.04702891845 108% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.59186692998 2.5805825403 100% => OK
Unique words: 184.0 145.348785872 127% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.508287292818 0.540411800872 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 568.8 419.366225166 136% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 21.2450331126 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 62.461365837 49.2860985944 127% => OK
Chars per sentence: 124.533333333 110.228320801 113% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.1333333333 21.698381199 111% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.2 7.06452816374 116% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.27373068433 94% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0485159531499 0.272083759551 18% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0210107306599 0.0996497079465 21% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0356022064552 0.0662205650399 54% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0303264297671 0.162205337803 19% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0275806164404 0.0443174109184 62% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.9 13.3589403974 112% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 47.12 53.8541721854 87% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 11.0289183223 115% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.94 12.2367328918 106% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.23 8.42419426049 98% => OK
difficult_words: 78.0 63.6247240618 123% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 10.7273730684 70% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 10.498013245 110% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.2008830022 116% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
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.