Portrait of an Elderly Woman in a White Bonnet
The reading and the lecture was both about one of Rembrandt painting. The author of the reading believes that the painting could not be a work by Rembrandt. The lecture shed lights on these claims made in the article to clear the misconception. She thinks that it originally work of Rembrandt and she gives certain claims for her rebuttal.
First of all, the author claims that there is inconsistence about the way the woman in the portrait has worn a fur collar that is giving a contrast as other clothes are like the servant. The point is made clear by the lecturer. She says that after meticulous x-rays examination it was found that the collar was made after 100 of years by someone else to make the painting more expensive and after removing the paint it can be seen that it is work of the painter.
Secondly, the author believes that there is the problem in light and shadow as Rembrandt was meticulous in it so due to faults in the painting it could not be work of Rembrandt. But the lecturer opposes it. She claims that it was due to the other painter who painted over the work of Rembrandt. Furthermore, she points out that when the fur collar is removed then one can see that the woman is wearing a light collar that reflects the light rather absorb and should be creating a shadow effect.
Third, the author states that the painting reveals that it was painted on a panel made of several pieces of wood glued together which proves not to be the work of Rembrandt. The lecturer challenged this point. She claims that after study it was found that someone else used wooden pieces to make it more valuable. She elaborates on this by mentioning that the single wood panel that was found after removing other glued one is that the wood is of the same tree that he used in other famous painting.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 158, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...nting could not be a work by Rembrandt. The lecture shed lights on these claims mad...
^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['but', 'first', 'furthermore', 'second', 'secondly', 'so', 'then', 'third', 'first of all']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.21613832853 0.261695866417 83% => OK
Verbs: 0.190201729107 0.158904122519 120% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0691642651297 0.0723426182421 96% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0403458213256 0.0435111971325 93% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0576368876081 0.0277247811725 208% => OK
Prepositions: 0.155619596542 0.128828473217 121% => OK
Participles: 0.0518731988473 0.0370669169778 140% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.34773518517 2.5805825403 91% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0172910662824 0.0208969081088 83% => OK
Particles: 0.0028818443804 0.00154638098197 186% => Less particles wanted.
Determiners: 0.129682997118 0.128158765124 101% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.014409221902 0.0158828679856 91% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0172910662824 0.0114777025283 151% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 1809.0 1645.83664459 110% => OK
No of words: 328.0 271.125827815 121% => OK
Chars per words: 5.51524390244 6.08160592843 91% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.25567506705 4.04852973271 105% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.283536585366 0.374372842146 76% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.182926829268 0.287516216867 64% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.125 0.187439937562 67% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.0731707317073 0.113142543107 65% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.34773518517 2.5805825403 91% => OK
Unique words: 136.0 145.348785872 94% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.414634146341 0.539623497131 77% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
Word variations: 40.9479292347 53.8517498576 76% => OK
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0529801325 115% => OK
Sentence length: 21.8666666667 21.7502111507 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 64.9363448994 49.3711431718 132% => OK
Chars per sentence: 120.6 132.220823453 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.8666666667 21.7502111507 101% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.6 0.878197800319 68% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 3.39072847682 29% => OK
Readability: 40.1593495935 50.5018328374 80% => OK
Elegance: 1.47 1.90840788429 77% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0847669874408 0.451937469235 19% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.150303413724 0.142949733639 105% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.102400191814 0.0787303798458 130% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.613662693439 0.631733273073 97% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.163278769414 0.139662658121 117% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0433859569842 0.21790590567 20% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0361603007152 0.0871468918476 41% => The sentences are too close to each other.
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.579215815269 0.414875509568 140% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0411117373818 0.0530846634433 77% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0711865457984 0.332364718235 21% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0074702731217 0.0446026805963 17% => Paragraphs are similar to each other.
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 4.45695364238 45% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.26048565121 164% => OK
Positive topic words: 6.0 3.49668874172 172% => OK
Negative topic words: 2.0 3.62251655629 55% => OK
Neutral topic words: 7.0 3.1766004415 220% => OK
Total topic words: 15.0 10.2958057395 146% => OK
---------------------
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 to cover all aspects.