The reading and the lecture discuss the importance and the quality of the communal online encyclopedias. The author of the reading thinks that they are not valuable or accurate. However, the lecturer refutes all the claims in the reading passage.
First, the article argues that online encyclopedias lack accuracy. The professor, on the other hand, rejects this opinion by stating that even traditional ones have errors and it is nearly impossible to find any encyclopedia without mistakes. Moreover, online data can be easily corrected or revised, which is opposite to the traditional ones.
Second, the text contends that the online encyclopedias are liable for hacking and misleading with the information. The speaker rebuts this assumptions by explaining that even it may be partially true, but now the facts on any encyclopedias are read-only which protect it from any possible threat. What is more, the encyclopedias hires editors whose job is to edit and revise the information, which eliminates the chances of untruthful data.
Third, the passage posits that the online encyclopedias focus more on trivial topics. Conversely, the lecturer casts doubt on this notion. She elaborates that it a positive thing to have many topics that really reflect the different interests of people. Besides, the academic topics also exist for those want them. Hence, the online resources are more varied and covers different fields of subjects and topics.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, besides, but, conversely, first, hence, however, if, may, moreover, really, second, so, third, what is more, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 15.1003584229 66% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 9.8082437276 20% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 13.8261648746 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 11.0286738351 109% => OK
Pronoun: 19.0 43.0788530466 44% => OK
Preposition: 20.0 52.1666666667 38% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 3.0 8.0752688172 37% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1228.0 1977.66487455 62% => OK
No of words: 228.0 407.700716846 56% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.38596491228 4.8611393121 111% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.88582923847 4.48103885553 87% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.81339735522 2.67179642975 105% => OK
Unique words: 140.0 212.727598566 66% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.614035087719 0.524837075471 117% => OK
syllable_count: 392.4 618.680645161 63% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.51630824373 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 9.59856630824 10% => OK
Interrogative: 1.0 0.994623655914 101% => OK
Article: 12.0 3.08781362007 389% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 0.0 3.51792114695 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.86738351254 54% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.94265232975 20% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 20.6003584229 68% => 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: 16.0 20.1344086022 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 39.2116184365 48.9658058833 80% => OK
Chars per sentence: 87.7142857143 100.406767564 87% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.2857142857 20.6045352989 79% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.42857142857 5.45110844103 173% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.5376344086 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 11.8709677419 42% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 3.85842293907 181% => OK
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: 0.19972027883 0.236089414692 85% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0627631932555 0.076458572812 82% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0450498303499 0.0737576698707 61% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.109099608703 0.150856017488 72% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0482764709474 0.0645574589148 75% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.1 11.7677419355 103% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 46.78 58.1214874552 80% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.10430107527 144% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 10.1575268817 105% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.69 10.9000537634 126% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.42 8.01818996416 117% => OK
difficult_words: 72.0 86.8835125448 83% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 7.0 10.002688172 70% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 10.0537634409 84% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.247311828 88% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
We are expecting: No. of Words: 350 while No. of Different Words: 200
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.
More content wanted.
Minimum 250 words wanted.
Rates: 60.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 18.0 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.