Chevalier de Seingalt
In this set of material, the evidence suggesting whether Chevalier de Seingalt's memoirs are true or not is discussed. The article mentions three main hypotheses proving that Seingalt's memoirs are not faithful. On the contrary, the lecturer from the listening passage convincingly challenges the essay, claiming that reasons are not so trustworthy.
First of all, the professor refutes the idea, insisting that de Seingalt borrowed money because of a bad financial situation. The reading passage maintains that in his notes Seingalt wrote about the time when he was living in Switzerland that he was very wealthy, and spend myriads of money on parties and gambling. But recently it found out, that Seingalt had borrowed great amount of capital from Swiss merchants. Nevertheless, the lecturer proposes, that it is clear that Seingalt was not poor. When he had been organizing huge parties, he needed huge money immediately, to have such cash people often sell their wealth, but it takes a while before they converted the wealth into money. So Seingalt may have borrowed some finances from his friends before the cost of sold wealth arrived.
On top of that, the professor discredits the second notion, which assumes, that Seingalt had coined many details in his story about the meeting with Voltaire. The essay claims, that Seingalt wrote the part about meeting with Voltaire many years after it had occured, and he could not remember all the details clearly. Nonetheless, the academic assumes, that there is evidence, proposing that Seingalt had been writing about the meeting with Voltaire each night over many years, he did so to remember all the factors distinctly. When writing his memoirs, most probably he reffered to the help of that notes and journals.
In the end, the academic rebuts the notion, claiming that de Seingalt had composed many facts about his escape from the jail of Venice. The abstract maintains, that in his memoirs Seingalt wrote about escape, that he had opened a hole in the ceiling using a piece of metal, and climbed out through it. Many critics believe that Seingalt lies to make the reading enjoyable because he had many politically influential friends, who could bribe the jailers to free him. However, the professor assumes, that in the jails there were people with even more well-connected friends, if bribing jailers was possible, they could free their friends immediately. There is another fact too. In very old governmental documents of Venice, it is mentioned, that the the cell Seingal was staying, had to be repaired, because of a hole in the ceiling. The date of the document was approximately after the escape that Seingal may do. This is a strong proof, that Seingal is not lying, and he did everything as he said.
Hereby, the professor brings counter-arguments proving that the reading passage is not precise enough.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-03-28 | TANVIR SIDDIKE MOIN | 76 | view |
| 2023-10-04 | 200suranjan | 60 | view |
| 2023-05-17 | Haleh Rezazadeh | 73 | view |
| 2023-02-15 | joyce05 | 3 | view |
| 2023-01-20 | theprasad | 70 | view |
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 744, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: the
...uments of Venice, it is mentioned, that the the cell Seingal was staying, had to be rep...
^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 744, Rule ID: DT_DT[1]
Message: Maybe you need to remove one determiner so that only 'the' or 'the' is left.
Suggestion: the; the
...uments of Venice, it is mentioned, that the the cell Seingal was staying, had to be rep...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, if, may, nevertheless, nonetheless, second, so, well, while, first of all, on the contrary, on top of that
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 10.4613686534 201% => Less to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 28.0 12.0772626932 232% => Less relative clauses wanted (maybe 'which' is over used).
Pronoun: 53.0 22.412803532 236% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 54.0 30.3222958057 178% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2397.0 1373.03311258 175% => OK
No of words: 471.0 270.72406181 174% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.08917197452 5.08290768461 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.65859790218 4.04702891845 115% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.63551831503 2.5805825403 102% => OK
Unique words: 234.0 145.348785872 161% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.496815286624 0.540411800872 92% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 713.7 419.366225166 170% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 15.0 3.25607064018 461% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 14.0 8.23620309051 170% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 1.25165562914 320% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 6.0 1.51434878587 396% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 7.0 2.5761589404 272% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 13.0662251656 168% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 21.2450331126 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 44.9342954667 49.2860985944 91% => OK
Chars per sentence: 108.954545455 110.228320801 99% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.4090909091 21.698381199 99% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.77272727273 7.06452816374 82% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 15.0 4.33554083885 346% => Less positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 4.45695364238 67% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.27373068433 94% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.2309130256 0.272083759551 85% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0719403156681 0.0996497079465 72% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0888669264174 0.0662205650399 134% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.127774483835 0.162205337803 79% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0938208751848 0.0443174109184 212% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.2 13.3589403974 99% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 58.62 53.8541721854 109% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 11.0289183223 93% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.24 12.2367328918 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.2 8.42419426049 97% => OK
difficult_words: 105.0 63.6247240618 165% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.498013245 99% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
Rates: 73.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.0 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.