Both the listening and the writing discuss the possible author of the Voynich manuscript. They contradict each other from the following three perspectives.
First, the lecturer challenges the idea purposed by the writer that the manuscript was created by Ascham with lots of scientific work. Instead, he contends that the manuscript is not fit Ascham because the plants in Ascham's book are quite ordinary. Moreover, he cites one herb in his book which is actually a common plant. Thus, it is unlikely that the manuscript was documented by Ascham.
Second, the professor refutes the idea advocated by the author that the manuscript has no special meaning and was just used to extracted money by Edward Kelley. Nevertheless, he posits that it was easy to fool the wealthy noble at that time because they would not take care of it. As a result, there was not need for Kelley to put so much work to make the manuscript so complex.
Third, the lecture casts doubt on the thought illustrated by the passage that Voynich himself created the manuscript to sell old book. On the contrary, it indicated that the ink on the manuscript is at least 400 years old. Therefore, even though Voynich could create a manuscript that looks old, he was not able to get the 400-year-old ink.
In conclusion, the talk rebuts the passage from three distinct aspects in regard to the possible origin of the manuscript.
- Imagine you need to improve your performance in order to get better grades or higher work payment which way would you choose 1 doing more extra work or assignments that are required2 participate more actively or contributing your own idea more frequentl 90
- TOEFL T P O 43 Integrated Writing Task 3
- Tpo41Burning coal in power plants produces a waste product called coal ash a material that contains small amounts of potentially harmful chemicals Environmentalists in the United States are concerned about the damage such harmful chemicals may be doing 70
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement When teachers assign projects on which students must work together the students learn much more effectively than when they are asked to work alone on projects Use specific reasons and examples to supp 70
- TPO42 Integrated writing 80
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, first, if, look, moreover, nevertheless, second, so, therefore, third, thus, at least, in conclusion, as a result, in regard to, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 10.4613686534 105% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 5.04856512141 59% => OK
Conjunction : 2.0 7.30242825607 27% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 22.412803532 94% => OK
Preposition: 28.0 30.3222958057 92% => OK
Nominalization: 0.0 5.01324503311 0% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1167.0 1373.03311258 85% => OK
No of words: 238.0 270.72406181 88% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.90336134454 5.08290768461 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.92775363542 4.04702891845 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.64146735044 2.5805825403 102% => OK
Unique words: 140.0 145.348785872 96% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.588235294118 0.540411800872 109% => OK
syllable_count: 342.0 419.366225166 82% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.55342163355 90% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 3.25607064018 215% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 4.0 8.23620309051 49% => 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: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 27.9830887223 49.2860985944 57% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 89.7692307692 110.228320801 81% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.3076923077 21.698381199 84% => OK
Discourse Markers: 12.2307692308 7.06452816374 173% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 4.45695364238 67% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.27373068433 140% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.228180313431 0.272083759551 84% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0845644163096 0.0996497079465 85% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0520319979442 0.0662205650399 79% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.115215972586 0.162205337803 71% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0348093632746 0.0443174109184 79% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.8 13.3589403974 81% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 70.13 53.8541721854 130% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 7.9 11.0289183223 72% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.14 12.2367328918 91% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.11 8.42419426049 96% => OK
difficult_words: 54.0 63.6247240618 85% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 7.0 10.7273730684 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 86.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 26.0 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.