The article introduces how a professor appearances on television has impact on universities, for themselves and to the general public. More specifically, the writer discuss that it has positive impact to all those when they appear on television. On the other hand, the professor in the listening casts doubts on this matter. She believes that when a professor appears as a guest in television, nobody gets any benefit and refutes each of the claims made in the reading.
In the reading, the author begins by claiming that it will enhance the professor importance because thousand of the people becomes aware of professor's ideas. The lecturer in listening, however, disagrees. She argues that it will just only degrades the professor importance. She goes on to say that it will just consume times and they will reduces the chance of getting invited into the important conference by the their fellow professor.
The writer also believes that the appearance of professor on television will also be beneficial for university as well. The speaker casts a serious doubts on this matter. She holds that university won't be benefited. She continues that if a professor spent time on television, he won't have sufficient time to work for the university and help students.
At last, the author claims that professor's appearance on television lead a viewers to have a chance to learn from him. The speaker again doubts that it is flawed. She holds that TV network never take a issue seriously and never present them in depth.
In sum up, the writer and professor holds contradictory views on this matter. So it is clear that they will never get common ground on this issue.
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? In a team, those who do not accept others’ criticism cannot succeed. 70
- It is better to have broad knowledge of many academic subjects than to specialize in one specific subject. 70
- TPO 31 Integrated Writing Task 60
- nnnnnnnnnnnnn 3
- do you agree or disagree with the following statement social media affected our life and ruined our relationships 73
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 18 in 30
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 6 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 17 12
No. of Words: 281 250
No. of Characters: 1359 1200
No. of Different Words: 139 150
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.094 4.2
Average Word Length: 4.836 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.659 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 97 80
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 70 60
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 48 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 40 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 16.529 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.783 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.294 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.332 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.332 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.161 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 4