In contemporary society, how to correct people’s errors has become a challenge to our life. Most of us would have such a situation: when taking a course or attending a meeting, we find views of the speakers are contradict to our views. So meanwhile, we are facing a dilemma to decide what we should do, to point out directly or just keep silence and say nothing? For me, most of the time, I would prefer to further explain the problem privately with the speaker after the meeting or class.
It is very typical for some warm-heart people to choose interrupt the speaker, and point out his fault directly, which I think is quite impolite and inefficient. The biggest concern is that it force the meeting to stop suddenly, without caring about the other listeners. That is to say, the speaker may have his own plan of the speech, but the interrupting prompt him to stop and to explain, which would damage his origin plan. Thus, some parts of the speech may remain unfinished due to the time spent on explanation. This is impolite to not only the speaker, but also all the listener, who planned to listen to a complete speech but only get a part.
However, I do not think keep silence all the time would be a good idea. To the speaker, if no one print out his errors, he may keep the mistaken conception all the time. To the listener, they might think the incorrect answer is truth! An illustrating example is that supposing we are in a physic class now, and every students are listening to the professor carefully. Then when the professor is trying to solve a problem, I suddenly find an equation on the blackboard does not violate the Newton’s Law! I will not point out directly, or the professor may have to postpone his plan. But if I do not say a word, many students would be confused. How can we find a balance between not interrupting the speaker and making the speaker know something goes wrong?
I would argue the best solution for this dilemma is to talk with the speaker when the speech is over. In one hand, it keep the integrity of the speech and give the speaker enough respect. On the other hand, the discussion between us enables us to comprehend the problem more thorough, and when the speaker notice his mistake, he could take measures to make up his negligence. This solution balance the both sides of listener and speaker, solving the problem but keeps polite and elegant.
In a nutshell, based on the previous discussion, I believe the best way to express your questions is to talk with the speaker personally after the speech. Other methods are useful in some situations, but bring too many side effect most of the time.
- In 20 years from now on, students will not use printed books anymore. 76
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? The government should support scientific research that does not have any practical use in the short term 76
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? It is more important to keep your old friends than it is to make new friends. Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer. 76
- Imagine that you are in a classroom or a meeting. The teacher or the meeting leader says something incorrect In your opinion, which of the following is the best thing to do?•Interrupt and correct the mistake right away.•Wait until the class or meeting 70
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? The government should support scientific research that does not have any practical use in the short term 76
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 217, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'contradicted'.
Suggestion: contradicted
...ting, we find views of the speakers are contradict to our views. So meanwhile, we are faci...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 57, Rule ID: AFFORD_VB[1]
Message: This verb is used with the infinitive: 'to interrupt'
Suggestion: to interrupt
...al for some warm-heart people to choose interrupt the speaker, and point out his fault di...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 119, Rule ID: IT_VBZ[1]
Message: Did you mean 'keeps'?
Suggestion: keeps
...hen the speech is over. In one hand, it keep the integrity of the speech and give th...
^^^^
Line 7, column 391, Rule ID: MASS_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Possible agreement error - use third-person verb forms for singular and mass nouns: 'balances'.
Suggestion: balances
...o make up his negligence. This solution balance the both sides of listener and speaker,...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, however, if, may, so, then, thus, while, i think, on the other hand, that is to say
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 15.1003584229 119% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 9.8082437276 153% => OK
Conjunction : 20.0 13.8261648746 145% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 11.0286738351 91% => OK
Pronoun: 40.0 43.0788530466 93% => OK
Preposition: 57.0 52.1666666667 109% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 8.0752688172 136% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2189.0 1977.66487455 111% => OK
No of words: 474.0 407.700716846 116% => OK
Chars per words: 4.61814345992 4.8611393121 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.66599839874 4.48103885553 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.56290216006 2.67179642975 96% => OK
Unique words: 233.0 212.727598566 110% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.491561181435 0.524837075471 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 666.9 618.680645161 108% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.51630824373 92% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 16.0 9.59856630824 167% => OK
Article: 4.0 3.08781362007 130% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 3.51792114695 28% => OK
Conjunction: 8.0 1.86738351254 428% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 8.0 4.94265232975 162% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 20.6003584229 102% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 20.1344086022 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 40.821885109 48.9658058833 83% => OK
Chars per sentence: 104.238095238 100.406767564 104% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.5714285714 20.6045352989 110% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.47619047619 5.45110844103 82% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.53405017921 110% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.5376344086 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 11.8709677419 59% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 13.0 3.85842293907 337% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.88709677419 20% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0924157099027 0.236089414692 39% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0296752668412 0.076458572812 39% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0269498357991 0.0737576698707 37% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0527142845863 0.150856017488 35% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0261719078815 0.0645574589148 41% => 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: 11.6 11.7677419355 99% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 66.07 58.1214874552 114% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.10430107527 51% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 10.1575268817 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 9.81 10.9000537634 90% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.53 8.01818996416 94% => OK
difficult_words: 84.0 86.8835125448 97% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.002688172 105% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.0537634409 107% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 10.247311828 107% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 70.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 21.0 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.