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.
In a situation where the teacher or meeting leader presents an erroneous idea, what should one do? Those who dignifies those in charge very much may choose to talk to the teacher or leader afterwards or even stay quiet the whole time, for pointing out that the teacher or leader was wrong poses a potential disrespect. However, choosing not to act immediately to correct the error will greatly reduce the learning experience for the audience and make the class or discussion generally less interactive. Weighing the two sides, I hold the opinion that incorrect statements in a classroom or a meeting should be corrected right away.
It is true that correcting a teacher or meeting leader could be interpreted as disrespectful. This was the case years ago in many Asian countries. In ancient China, teachers were well respected figures whose words are not to be challenged. Even today, many Chinese students are still used to ignore mistakes teachers make in class and only tell the teacher about the mistakes afterwards or not at all. While doing so does retain the teacher's dignity and authority, it is done at the expense of the learning quality of those students who may not have identified the mistake. Some people may take all of the teacher's words for granted without a doubt, not knowing that they have acquired some erroneous knowledge.
On the other hand, immediately pointing out a mistake in lectures or meetings greatly enhances learning experience. Consider a math class in which the professor makes mistake early on in inducing a formula. If the mistake is not pointed out, the lecturer may not find out until much later. When that happens, the professor will have to repeat the entire induction again, which wastes a lot of valuable time. If the mistake were pointed out in the very beginning, this could be avoided.
Furthermore, pointing out the mistakes in a classroom or meeting makes the setting more interactive. People generally dislike monologues. Therefore, by pointing out the mistake of those leading the discussion may be quite beneficial. Instead of being offended, the leader or teacher may actually feel delighted because the audience is actually participating.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 434, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'teachers'' or 'teacher's'?
Suggestion: teachers'; teacher's
... at all. While doing so does retain the teachers dignity and authority, it is done at th...
^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 596, Rule ID: ALL_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'all the'.
Suggestion: all the
...ified the mistake. Some people may take all of the teachers words for granted without a do...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 105, Rule ID: AFFORD_VB[1]
Message: This verb is used with the infinitive: 'to experience'
Suggestion: to experience
...s or meetings greatly enhances learning experience. Consider a math class in which the pro...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, furthermore, however, if, may, so, still, therefore, well, while, it is true, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 15.1003584229 106% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 9.8082437276 122% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 13.8261648746 101% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 11.0286738351 109% => OK
Pronoun: 15.0 43.0788530466 35% => OK
Preposition: 39.0 52.1666666667 75% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 8.0752688172 74% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1839.0 1977.66487455 93% => OK
No of words: 362.0 407.700716846 89% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.08011049724 4.8611393121 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.36191444098 4.48103885553 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.7331612328 2.67179642975 102% => OK
Unique words: 191.0 212.727598566 90% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.527624309392 0.524837075471 101% => OK
syllable_count: 575.1 618.680645161 93% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.51630824373 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 9.59856630824 63% => OK
Article: 3.0 3.08781362007 97% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 3.51792114695 114% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.86738351254 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.94265232975 101% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 20.6003584229 92% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 20.1344086022 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 43.9576099003 48.9658058833 90% => OK
Chars per sentence: 96.7894736842 100.406767564 96% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.0526315789 20.6045352989 92% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.52631578947 5.45110844103 101% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.5376344086 54% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 11.8709677419 67% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 3.85842293907 233% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.88709677419 41% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.239638564347 0.236089414692 102% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0767985463995 0.076458572812 100% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0670633303423 0.0737576698707 91% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.147879878528 0.150856017488 98% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0497962302175 0.0645574589148 77% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.0 11.7677419355 102% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 58.1214874552 90% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.10430107527 51% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 10.1575268817 105% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.18 10.9000537634 112% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.37 8.01818996416 104% => OK
difficult_words: 87.0 86.8835125448 100% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 10.002688172 135% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.0537634409 95% => 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.
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.