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? 1. Interrupt and correct the mistake right away: 2. Wait until the class or meeting is over and the people are gone, and then talk to the teacher or meeting leader; 3. say nothing.
Without any doubt, when an incorrect statement is discussing, the audience who detects the false information in the speech or conversation are is responsible for take taking in part in and correct the wrong statements. However, how to react to the wrong (incorrect/ erroneous) statement is a broad topic which depends on numerous factors such as the circumstance, as far as I am concerned, I prefer to correct the inaccurate information right away. The reasons for my choice are manifold, among which leading the audience to make a wrong decision and forcing the lecturer to be more conservative about his speech dominate.
It is crystal clear that when someone is in a position of a teacher or a meeting leader, the speech should be ready prior to the class or session; therefore, no reason is accepted to offer wrong information to people who are there in order to raise their knowledge. Furthermore, if any of the audience take the wrong information into account for making a decision, not only is the lecturer responsible for the inaccurate information, but also the person who detected the fault and did not react have has made another mistake. For instance, I remember that two years ago I had attended in a workshop about different systems of water treatment that can be used in a special (particular) factory, and one of the session leaders was a shareholder of a great company in this field. Although he was really knowledgeable, his profit caused him to speak tendentiously, and it was making some unaware factory's managers to ignore this project footprint, which was essentially ruining for the region of the factory. I though thought that if I would bewere silent, this wrong decision would have made an irreversible fault, so, I decided to response the speech and aware of the audience toward the disadvantages of that choice.
Secondly, if the lecturer knows that the audiences are conscious about his speech, he absolutely will be more sensible on the information he is conveying. And the sole way that the listener can show his consciousness is to take a part on in the topic and especially hint the lecturer if there exists any mistake. As a case in point, I had experienced in two different university universities at the same time, one was a high-rank university, and the students were really clever bright and asked questions about any ambiguous point; in contrast, the students of other university were lazy and careless. I, personally, while getting ready to teach at the later one tried less than the first one and had less stress, because I knew that even if I would made a mistake, no one would have reacted.
To conclude, owing to what is argued, as a listener I would rather be active and response the wrong statements of the teacher or lecturer because not only will this action help unaware audience misleading of and making wrong decisions, but it also cause a higher quality of the speech.
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? It is better to have broad knowledge of many academic subjects than to specialize in one specific subject. 73
- Imagine that you plan to donate money to charity to help people in need. If you could give money toonly one type of charitable organization, which one of the following would you choose and why?- An organization that provides food and housing to people in 3
- 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? 1. Interrupt and correct the mistake right away: 2. Wait until the class or meet 3
- The author states about the reasons that show that the teenage girl in the portrait did belong to Jane Austen. As opposed to, the lecturer who counter-argues that viewpoint trying to prove that these three reasons do not seem convincing.First and foremos 80
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 750, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[1]
Message: The verb 'would' requires the base form of the verb: 'make'
Suggestion: make
...ss, because I knew that even if I would made a mistake, no one would have reacted. ...
^^^^
Line 4, column 249, Rule ID: IT_VBZ[1]
Message: Did you mean 'causes'?
Suggestion: causes
...and making wrong decisions, but it also cause a higher quality of the speech.
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, furthermore, however, if, really, second, secondly, so, therefore, while, for instance, in contrast, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 26.0 15.1003584229 172% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 9.8082437276 102% => OK
Conjunction : 20.0 13.8261648746 145% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 11.0286738351 145% => OK
Pronoun: 36.0 43.0788530466 84% => OK
Preposition: 53.0 52.1666666667 102% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 8.0752688172 223% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2423.0 1977.66487455 123% => OK
No of words: 499.0 407.700716846 122% => OK
Chars per words: 4.85571142285 4.8611393121 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.72634191566 4.48103885553 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.85353008839 2.67179642975 107% => OK
Unique words: 246.0 212.727598566 116% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.492985971944 0.524837075471 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 774.0 618.680645161 125% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.51630824373 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 9.59856630824 94% => OK
Article: 4.0 3.08781362007 130% => OK
Subordination: 9.0 3.51792114695 256% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 6.0 1.86738351254 321% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 5.0 4.94265232975 101% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 20.6003584229 63% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 38.0 20.1344086022 189% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 43.5763629538 48.9658058833 89% => OK
Chars per sentence: 186.384615385 100.406767564 186% => OK
Words per sentence: 38.3846153846 20.6045352989 186% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.69230769231 5.45110844103 178% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.5376344086 36% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 11.8709677419 25% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 3.85842293907 233% => 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: 0.0613097477897 0.236089414692 26% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0246821260265 0.076458572812 32% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0358334935354 0.0737576698707 49% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0388576299571 0.150856017488 26% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.03339399089 0.0645574589148 52% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 20.7 11.7677419355 176% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 32.91 58.1214874552 57% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 11.2 6.10430107527 183% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 18.1 10.1575268817 178% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.5 10.9000537634 106% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.97 8.01818996416 112% => OK
difficult_words: 109.0 86.8835125448 125% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 19.0 10.002688172 190% => OK
gunning_fog: 17.2 10.0537634409 171% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 10.247311828 117% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Better to have 5 paragraphs with 3 arguments. And try always support/against one side but compare two sides, like this:
para 1: introduction
para 2: reason 1. address both of the views presented for reason 1
para 3: reason 2. address both of the views presented for reason 2
para 4: reason 3. address both of the views presented for reason 3
para 5: conclusion.
So how to find out those reasons. There is a formula:
reasons == advantages or
reasons == disadvantages
for example, we can always apply 'save time', 'save/make money', 'find a job', 'make friends', 'get more information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.
or we can apply 'waste time', 'waste money', 'no job', 'make bad friends', 'get bad information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.
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.