Nowadays, people participate in meetings more than the past. It does not matter which society establishes these meetings, such as schools, working places or even their friendly gatherings. As there are so many people with different personalities in these meetings, several topics will be discussed and each person may say his/her opinion about the same topic freely, both correct and incorrect. Many people want to know which strategy is the best behavior to repudiate these incorrect statements. There are many ideas and alternatives in this case, but I personally think waiting till being alone with person who says wrong issues, is the best choice. In what follows, I delve into couple of reasons to shed light on my response.
First reason that comes into my mind is that the mistaken person may correct him/herself. Speakers, due to being under pressure to have speech in each society, may not be relaxed enough to speak fluently and do not have hundred percent focus on what s/he speaks. There are so many situations in which a person does several mistakes, but in the following of his/her talk, s/he may correct them. Based on an experiment on professors, done in Shahid Beheshti University of Iran, even professors with lots of experience, had above ten wrong letters in each hundred ones. The researchers continued their experiment till the professors ended up their speech. The final result of this experiment shows that among ten mentioned letters, the professors corrected more than five of them.
Second, should people wait till mistaken person finishes his/her speech, they may be reacted by harsh behavior. Actually, asking questions between someone's speech leads to interrupting the way s/he is thinking, and it follows losing control of the meeting. People with lots of different personalities, may have various behaviors in these situations, someone may react really harsh. As I remember, when I was an eighteen years old child, I had a really expert teacher, named Mohammad. The way he taught us was one of the best methods I had ever seen, but whenever each student asked him whether issues in the lesson was wrong or not, he lost control of the class and he were not able to continue his teaching.
To recapitulate, we can conclude that waiting for mistaken people till the end of their speech and then telling them the mistakes, is the best strategy against such people. This is because not only never mistaken people react harshly but also, they may correct themselves in the following of speech. Thus, I strongly suggest that if people see someone saying wrong statements, they should wait and try to have argument at the end of the meeting.
- TPO 33 Integrated Writing Task 42
- Humans have long been fascinated by elephants, the largest land animal in the modern world. Social animals that live in herds, elephants are native to both Africa and Asia. Their large ears, long trunk, and long life span have made elephants one of the mo 80
- The Little Ice Age was a period of unusually cold temperature in many parts of the world that lasted from about the year 1350 until 1900C.E.. There were unusually harsh winters, and glaciers grew larger in many areas. Scientists have long wondered what ca 81
- tpo 46 independent task 3
- TPO-46 - Integrated Writing Task In the United States, medical information about patients traditionally has been recorded and stored on paper forms. However, there are efforts to persuade doctors to adopt electronic medical record systems in which informa 80
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 221, Rule ID: NODT_DOZEN[1]
Message: Use simply: 'a hundred'.
Suggestion: a hundred
...nough to speak fluently and do not have hundred percent focus on what s/he speaks. Ther...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, first, if, may, really, second, so, then, thus, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 15.1003584229 119% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 9.8082437276 122% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 13.8261648746 101% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 11.0286738351 91% => OK
Pronoun: 52.0 43.0788530466 121% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 59.0 52.1666666667 113% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 8.0752688172 62% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2226.0 1977.66487455 113% => OK
No of words: 445.0 407.700716846 109% => OK
Chars per words: 5.00224719101 4.8611393121 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.59293186426 4.48103885553 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.58121558666 2.67179642975 97% => OK
Unique words: 244.0 212.727598566 115% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.548314606742 0.524837075471 104% => OK
syllable_count: 661.5 618.680645161 107% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.51630824373 99% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 9.59856630824 104% => OK
Article: 4.0 3.08781362007 130% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 3.51792114695 85% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.86738351254 214% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 2.0 4.94265232975 40% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 20.6003584229 97% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 20.1344086022 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 41.3597328328 48.9658058833 84% => OK
Chars per sentence: 111.3 100.406767564 111% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.25 20.6045352989 108% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.8 5.45110844103 70% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.5376344086 18% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 11.8709677419 42% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 3.85842293907 259% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.88709677419 102% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.102124430253 0.236089414692 43% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0338213584519 0.076458572812 44% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0290056926547 0.0737576698707 39% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0648745515888 0.150856017488 43% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0224517458489 0.0645574589148 35% => 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: 13.2 11.7677419355 112% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 57.61 58.1214874552 99% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.10430107527 51% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 10.1575268817 105% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.02 10.9000537634 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.45 8.01818996416 105% => OK
difficult_words: 105.0 86.8835125448 121% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.002688172 110% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.0537634409 107% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 10.247311828 107% => 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: 83.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 25.0 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.