The reading and the lecture are both about Portrait of an Elderly Woman in a White Bonnet,” a painting may or may not be a work by Rembrandt. The author of the reading believes that there are 3 possible explanations that indicate the painting is not drawn by Rambart. The lecturer challenges the statement made by the author. He is of the opinion that none of these 3 explanations are perfect enough to deny the painting is done by Rembrandt.
First of all, the author suggests that there is some anomaly in the dress of the portrayed women. It is mentioned that there is a discrepancy between the type of cap which normally worn by servants and the coat which has a valuable fur collar and it doesn’t represent the way Rembrandt work normally. This argument is challenged by the lecturer. He says that Fur collar was not a part of the original product. Furthermore, he argues that some changes have been made possible to enhance the value of the product as a result fur collar has been shifted from the top of the point.
Secondly, The writer contends that there lacks harmony between light and shadow on that particular portrait. The article notes that the dark fur collar which is situated underneath the face makes the face darker as it consumes light instead of illuminate. The lecturer, however, rebuts this by asserting that in original image light and shadow creates a realistic figure. He elaborates on this by mentioning that in its previous version the girl had a light color dress which reflects the front face.
Finally, It is stated in the article that there is a presence of several pieces of wood connected together which doesn’t follow the Rembrandt style, appearance. The author establishes that Rembrandt normally draws on a single piece of wood. The lecturer, on the contrary, posits that to make it more valuable further some changes have been made like enlargement of the wood panel by attaching several blocks of wood. He puts forth the idea that the backside wood panel of that painting is also generated from the same tree that Rembrandt uses regularly for drawing purpose.
In conclusion, the lecturer successfully challenges the statements made by the author.
- Repenomamus robustus (R.robustus) was not an active hunter 81
- TOEFL T P O 5 - Integrated Writing Task 3
- "The surface of a section of Route 101, paved just two years ago by Good Intentions Roadways, is now badly cracked with a number of dangerous potholes. In another part of the state, a section of Route 40, paved by Appian Roadways more than four years ago, 66
- The following appeared in a memo from New Ventures Consulting to the president of HobCo, Inc., a chain of hobby shops."Our team has completed its research on suitable building sites for a new HobCo hobby Shop in the city of Grilldon. We discovered that th 72
- As early as the twelfth century A.D., the settlements of Chaco Canyon in New Mexico in the American Southwest were notable for their "great houses," massive stone buildings that contain hundreds of rooms and often stand three or four stories hig 81
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 90, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma
Suggestion: , &apos
...it of an Elderly Woman in a White Bonnet,' a painting may or may not be a work by...
^^^^^^
Line 1, column 274, 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.
...e the painting is not drawn by Rambart. The lecturer challenges the statement made ...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, furthermore, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, in conclusion, as a result, first of all, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 10.4613686534 182% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 5.04856512141 40% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 23.0 12.0772626932 190% => OK
Pronoun: 33.0 22.412803532 147% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 48.0 30.3222958057 158% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1841.0 1373.03311258 134% => OK
No of words: 375.0 270.72406181 139% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.90933333333 5.08290768461 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.40055868397 4.04702891845 109% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.69260188087 2.5805825403 104% => OK
Unique words: 182.0 145.348785872 125% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.485333333333 0.540411800872 90% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 567.9 419.366225166 135% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 3.25607064018 246% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
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: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 13.0662251656 138% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 43.5174152736 49.2860985944 88% => OK
Chars per sentence: 102.277777778 110.228320801 93% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.8333333333 21.698381199 96% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.61111111111 7.06452816374 108% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 4.33554083885 208% => Less positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 4.45695364238 22% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.27373068433 187% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0591925908352 0.272083759551 22% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0192148511313 0.0996497079465 19% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0279730366778 0.0662205650399 42% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0295054707518 0.162205337803 18% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0280675030223 0.0443174109184 63% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.1 13.3589403974 91% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 59.64 53.8541721854 111% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.0289183223 90% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.2 12.2367328918 92% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.38 8.42419426049 99% => OK
difficult_words: 89.0 63.6247240618 140% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => 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.