tpo8
Both of the reading and the lecture are about the Chevalier who wrote his memories about his life and meeting with famous and prominent persons. The reading provides three reasons that these memories are not accurate and he exaggerated in his writing to attract his readers. The lecturer casts doubt on the claims made in the article and finds all arguments unconvincing.
First of all, the author of reading declares that the Chevalier’s memories have contended that he was a wealthy person; however, there is some evidence about borrowing money from his friends and merchants. This point is challenged by the professor. She points out that borrowing money does not mean that a person is poor. Since the Chevalier was participating in a huge number of parties and gambling; therefore he had to sell some things and then it was taking time until his money was arriving; consequently, when may have required some money from merchants.
Secondly, the article believes that he wrote details of his meeting with the eminent writer Voltaire after several years; hence, the Chevalier could not remember exact events in the mentioned conversation and he may have tended to appeal people toward his memories. This argument is rebutted by the professor. She proposes that there some witness who were living at the same time with the Chevalier and they have claimed that after every conversation and appointment, he was attempting to take note. The lecturer elaborates on this by mentioning that the Chevalier used to maintain his notes for a long time even years.
Finally, the reading passage states that the Chevalier has claimed that he could escape from a prison in Venice with creating a hole in ceiling by a metal. His goal was that he wanted to add more exciting to his writing but in reality, it is plausible that the Chevalier gave bribe to jailers to flee; conversely, the lecturer refutes this hypothesis and expresses that there were a plethora of wealthy people who could suggest bribe for their freedom; however, they could not escape. Meanwhile, the evidence from Venice prison has confirmed the existence of a hole in celling.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, consequently, conversely, finally, first, hence, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, while, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 10.4613686534 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 7.30242825607 178% => OK
Relative clauses : 18.0 12.0772626932 149% => OK
Pronoun: 45.0 22.412803532 201% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 48.0 30.3222958057 158% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 5.01324503311 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1795.0 1373.03311258 131% => OK
No of words: 357.0 270.72406181 132% => OK
Chars per words: 5.02801120448 5.08290768461 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.34677393335 4.04702891845 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.63455764876 2.5805825403 102% => OK
Unique words: 178.0 145.348785872 122% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.498599439776 0.540411800872 92% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 558.9 419.366225166 133% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 3.25607064018 246% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Interrogative: 1.0 0.116997792494 855% => Less interrogative sentences wanted.
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
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: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 21.2450331126 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 82.2363443164 49.2860985944 167% => OK
Chars per sentence: 128.214285714 110.228320801 116% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.5 21.698381199 118% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.28571428571 7.06452816374 131% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => 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: 0.0 0.272083759551 0% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0 0.0996497079465 0% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0662205650399 0% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0 0.162205337803 0% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0443174109184 0% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.0 13.3589403974 112% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 46.1 53.8541721854 86% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.0 11.0289183223 118% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.19 12.2367328918 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.37 8.42419426049 99% => OK
difficult_words: 79.0 63.6247240618 124% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 10.498013245 114% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.2008830022 116% => 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.