TPo 35
The reading and the listening sections have conflicting views about the origin of a handwritten book that a bookseller gained in 1912 and has been unknown until now. The author believes that there are some possibility that explains the origin of this book and provides three of them, all of which are rejected by the lecturer. In addition, the lecturer brings up some explanations clarifying his notion.
First of all, the author believes that the texts of this book may consist of some magical and scientific texts that were written in a sophisticated code. He mentions Anthony Ascham, a botanist as its author since the plants illustrations of his book are the same as ones represented in this book. This idea is challenged by lecturer. He expresses that this person was an ordinary botanist and he always talked about some common plants, so his ideas were not valuable enough to write them in complex and secret codes.
Secondly, she mentions that it would be possible that this book has not had a meaning contents at all and been fake, made up by Edward Kelley, who earned money by pretending to have a magical powers, in random order to sell them to wealthy people. The lecturer, however, rebuts this idea by asserting that since people in 15th and 16th centaury were somehow fool and simple, Edward would not need to make up such a complex and difficult book to sell to the wealth people. Actually, he could have used some straightforward alphabets and pretended it as a magical book.
Finally, the author delineates that the bookseller, himself could have made this book since he was an antique book dealer, he could have had knowledge what the old books look like, so faked it. The lecturer, on the other hand, is of the idea that the pages and ink of book were belonged to 400 years ago, so even if the bookseller could have provided pages from other antique sources, he would not have been able to find 400-year-old ink to use and write this book.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 193, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[2]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'power'?
Suggestion: power
...d money by pretending to have a magical powers, in random order to sell them to wealth...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, finally, first, however, if, look, may, second, secondly, so, in addition, first of all, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 10.4613686534 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 5.04856512141 178% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 7.30242825607 178% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 12.0772626932 108% => OK
Pronoun: 39.0 22.412803532 174% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 45.0 30.3222958057 148% => OK
Nominalization: 1.0 5.01324503311 20% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1632.0 1373.03311258 119% => OK
No of words: 344.0 270.72406181 127% => OK
Chars per words: 4.74418604651 5.08290768461 93% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.30665032142 4.04702891845 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.50375427951 2.5805825403 97% => OK
Unique words: 174.0 145.348785872 120% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.505813953488 0.540411800872 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 495.9 419.366225166 118% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.55342163355 90% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 3.25607064018 246% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 28.0 21.2450331126 132% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 66.1078138767 49.2860985944 134% => OK
Chars per sentence: 136.0 110.228320801 123% => OK
Words per sentence: 28.6666666667 21.698381199 132% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.0833333333 7.06452816374 143% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => 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: 15.2 13.3589403974 114% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 59.98 53.8541721854 111% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.8 11.0289183223 107% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.8 12.2367328918 88% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.33 8.42419426049 99% => OK
difficult_words: 72.0 63.6247240618 113% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.2 10.498013245 126% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => 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.