Chevalair lied about some parts of his memoir
he was poor and asked for money
he did not talk with Voltare
he did not escape from a prison.
The article asserts that a well-known person called Chevalier changed and added some parts to his memoir in order to make it more enticing and attractive. Nevertheless, the professor completely overthrows this idea. In the following, the lecturer's explanations will be elaborated thoroughly by the most outstanding, solid proofs.
First of all, the reading upholds that Chevalier exaggerated about his wealth inasmuch as he used to borrow loans. Notwithstanding, the teacher does not agree with this rationalization since she claims that he had myriad non-cash assets; therefore, owing to the fact that he used to spend a preponderance of money on parties and gamblings, he some times needed cash money, so he asked loans for merchant which was usual. Therefore, he was not as poor as the author's presumption.
Secondly, the passage assumes that the conversations between Chevalier and Voltare, a famous writer, are illusions of the writer. Nonetheless, the professor disagrees with this justification as a result of the fact that she says that Chevalair tried to write and archive whatever they talked about every night. Moreover, some hand-writtings of these conversations have been found which shows that they talked to each other even before Chevalair planned to write his memoir.
Third, the article presumes that the escape plan from a dangerous prison is a fantasy story. On the other hand, the lecturer claims that this hypothesis is rigorously content inasmuch as even more powerful people in that prison could not commit a bribery in order to escape from it. Besides, the prisoners declared a ceiling repair was needed exactly at the night when Chevalair ran away from the prison. Thus, these consequences approve that Chevalair broke the prison.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-02-25 | Seyed Armin Mirhosseini | 88 | view |
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 459, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...l. Therefore, he was not as poor as the authors presumption. Secondly, the passage a...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
besides, first, if, moreover, nevertheless, nonetheless, second, secondly, so, therefore, third, thus, well, as a result, first of all, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 10.4613686534 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 5.04856512141 40% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 12.0772626932 124% => OK
Pronoun: 33.0 22.412803532 147% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 32.0 30.3222958057 106% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1486.0 1373.03311258 108% => OK
No of words: 280.0 270.72406181 103% => OK
Chars per words: 5.30714285714 5.08290768461 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.09062348924 4.04702891845 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.9181959062 2.5805825403 113% => OK
Unique words: 169.0 145.348785872 116% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.603571428571 0.540411800872 112% => OK
syllable_count: 452.7 419.366225166 108% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => 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: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 21.2450331126 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 64.7663986225 49.2860985944 131% => OK
Chars per sentence: 114.307692308 110.228320801 104% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.5384615385 21.698381199 99% => OK
Discourse Markers: 11.7692307692 7.06452816374 167% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => 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: 0.373814342666 0.272083759551 137% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.101581911601 0.0996497079465 102% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0838143123627 0.0662205650399 127% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.173224614278 0.162205337803 107% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.111647776608 0.0443174109184 252% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.4 13.3589403974 108% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 53.8541721854 93% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 11.0289183223 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.52 12.2367328918 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.19 8.42419426049 109% => OK
difficult_words: 80.0 63.6247240618 126% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 10.7273730684 107% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.498013245 99% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 88.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 26.5 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.