The article and the lecture are about three theories which have been proposed to explain the origin of the Voynich manuscript. The author in the passage believes that those hypotheses are well-supported. However, the lecturer casts doubt on the statements made in the article. She thinks that they do not present proper information about the origin of the manuscript.
First, the author claims that the manuscript was made by Anthony Ascham whose common illustrations from other books resemble with the illustrations of Voynich manuscript, consequently, he could have created this book in a complex code. Nevertheless, this hypothesis is challenged by the lecturer who posits that due to Anthony’s books were ordinary without original ideas and also the type of knowledge that he used, it is unlikely that he was the author of the manuscript.
Second, the article states that this book is really a fake which has no specific meaning. Supposedly it was created by Edward Kelley who used to trick the nobility by pretending to have magical power during the sixteenth century. Nonetheless, the lecturer discredits this point by clarifying that if it had been created for tricking people, why Edward would have spent so much time in making it look like a mysterious manuscript. Furthermore, she points out that so much work could not be a creation by Edward Kelley.
Finally, the author mentions that the manuscript is a modern face created bt Wilfrid Voynich who presumably acquired the historical book. Due to the vast knowledge about how this type of book looks like, He probably created the manuscript by himself. The lecturer, on the other hand, puts forth the idea that according to examination from dating materials the book was created about 400 years ago, therefore is unlikely that Voynich has acquired the material from this date in order to create the manuscript.
The article and the lecture are about three theories which have been proposed to explain the origin of the Voynich manuscript. The author in the passage believes that those hypotheses are well-supported. However, the lecturer casts doubt on the statements made in the article. She thinks that they do not present proper information about the origin of the manuscript.
First, the author claims that the manuscript was made by Anthony Ascham whose common illustrations from other books resemble with the illustrations of Voynich manuscript, consequently, he could have created this book in a complex code. Nevertheless, this hypothesis is challenged by the lecturer who posits that due to Anthony’s books were ordinary without original ideas and also the type of knowledge that he used, it is unlikely that he was the author of the manuscript.
Second, the article states that this book is really a fake which has no specific meaning. Supposedly it was created by Edward Kelley who used to trick the nobility by pretending to have magical power during the sixteenth century. Nonetheless, the lecturer discredits this point by clarifying that if it had been created for tricking people, why Edward would have spent so much time in making it look like a mysterious manuscript. Furthermore, she points out that so much work could not be a creation by Edward Kelley.
Finally, the author mentions that the manuscript is a modern face created bt Wilfrid Voynich who presumably acquired the historical book. Due to the vast knowledge about how this type of book looks like, He probably created the manuscript by himself. The lecturer, on the other hand, puts forth the idea that according to examination from dating materials the book was created about 400 years ago, therefore is unlikely that Voynich has acquired the material from this date in order to create the manuscript.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2018-11-30 | Joe Cedillo | 80 | view |
- The article and the lecture are about three theories which pretend to explain the meaning or the purpose of some carved stone balls that dated around 4000 years ago. The author in the passage believes that these hypotheses have some evidence that supports 80
- Altruism is a type of behavior in which an animal sacrifices its own interest for that of another animal or group of animals. Altruism is the opposite of selfishness; individuals performing altruistic acts gain nothing for themselves. Examples of altruism 3
- One of the threats to endangered sea turtle species is the use of nets by commercial shrimp-fishing boats. When turtles get accidentally caught in the nets, they cannot rise to the surface of the ocean to breathe, and they die. Some people suggest that th 83
- Hail—pieces of ice that form and fall from clouds instead of snow or rain—has always been a problem for farmers in some areas of the United States. Hail pellets can fall with great force and destroy crops in the field. Over the last few decades, a met 85
- At the end of the Triassic period 200 million years ago, there was a mass-extinction event that caused the extinction of more than half of all living species. It was this extinction event that allowed dinosaurs to become the dominant species for the next 80
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, consequently, finally, first, furthermore, however, if, look, nevertheless, nonetheless, really, second, so, therefore, well, 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: 3.0 5.04856512141 59% => OK
Conjunction : 2.0 7.30242825607 27% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 18.0 12.0772626932 149% => OK
Pronoun: 31.0 22.412803532 138% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 40.0 30.3222958057 132% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 5.01324503311 60% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1575.0 1373.03311258 115% => OK
No of words: 307.0 270.72406181 113% => OK
Chars per words: 5.13029315961 5.08290768461 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.18585898806 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.81032559528 2.5805825403 109% => OK
Unique words: 165.0 145.348785872 114% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.537459283388 0.540411800872 99% => OK
syllable_count: 479.7 419.366225166 114% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 3.25607064018 184% => OK
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: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 21.2450331126 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 64.5038414525 49.2860985944 131% => OK
Chars per sentence: 121.153846154 110.228320801 110% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.6153846154 21.698381199 109% => OK
Discourse Markers: 11.4615384615 7.06452816374 162% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => 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: 0.357827631681 0.272083759551 132% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.153524463755 0.0996497079465 154% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.173189752944 0.0662205650399 262% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.27305227706 0.162205337803 168% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.297234321478 0.0443174109184 671% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.5 13.3589403974 109% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.13 53.8541721854 89% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 11.0289183223 112% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.77 12.2367328918 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.63 8.42419426049 102% => OK
difficult_words: 75.0 63.6247240618 118% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 10.7273730684 79% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.498013245 107% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.0 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.