The article discusses a fascinating topic pertaining to the appearance of professors in televisions and provides three possible explanations.The author of the reading states that there will be a great benefit to themselves, universities as well as to the public. The lecturer challenges the statements made by the author in the article. He is of the opinion that none of the explanations presented in the article are correct.
First of all, the author says that professors will acquire reputations by appearing on the television. It is mentioned that thousands of people notice the professor's ideas and appreciate those ideas. This specific argument is challenged by the lecturer. He says that appearing on television will not benefit professors. These professors choose to entertain than educate others. Additionally, he says that professors cannot attend important conferences and meetings.
Secondly, the author states that universities receive positive publicity when professors appear on television. In the article, it is said that the increased reputation of the university leads to the joining of more potential students in the university. The lecturer, however, rebuts this by mentioning that professors will take lots of time in order to present themselves on tv. He elaborates this by bringing up the point that the professors can make their research, attend university business meetings. The students cannot find the professors on campus.
Finally, the author posits that the public gains benefit when professors appear on television. He says that viewers can learn from experts. The lecturer, on the other hand, refutes this point by that professor will discuss academic title but not about the subject. He says that professors speak about the background of current events, movie versions of great literary works.
In summary, the reading and the lecture are about the appearance of professors on tv, and the three main points in the reading are effectively challenged by the lecturer.
The article discusses a fascinating topic pertaining to the appearance of professors in televisions and provides three possible explanations.The author of the reading states that there will be a great benefit to themselves, universities as well as to the public. The lecturer challenges the statements made by the author in the article. He is of the opinion that none of the explanations presented in the article are correct.
First of all, the author says that professors will acquire reputations by appearing on the television. It is mentioned that thousands of people notice the professor's ideas and appreciate those ideas. This specific argument is challenged by the lecturer. He says that appearing on television will not benefit professors. These professors choose to entertain than educate others. Additionally, he says that professors cannot attend important conferences and meetings.
Secondly, the author states that universities receive positive publicity when professors appear on television. In the article, it is said that the increased reputation of the university leads to the joining of more potential students in the university. The lecturer, however, rebuts this by mentioning that professors will take lots of time in order to present themselves on tv. He elaborates this by bringing up the point that the professors can make their research, attend university business meetings. The students cannot find the professors on campus.
Finally, the author posits that the public gains benefit when professors appear on television. He says that viewers can learn from experts. The lecturer, on the other hand, refutes this point by that professor will discuss academic title but not about the subject. He says that professors speak about the background of current events, movie versions of great literary works.
In summary, the reading and the lecture are about the appearance of professors on tv, and the three main points in the reading are effectively challenged by the lecturer.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-06-20 | Sravanthi27 | 71 | view |
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 142, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: The
...nd provides three possible explanations.The author of the reading states that there...
^^^
Line 1, column 264, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
... universities as well as to the public. The lecturer challenges the statements made...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, however, if, second, secondly, so, well, as to, in summary, as well as, first of all, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 10.4613686534 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 5.04856512141 178% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 12.0772626932 132% => OK
Pronoun: 31.0 22.412803532 138% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 46.0 30.3222958057 152% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1699.0 1373.03311258 124% => OK
No of words: 311.0 270.72406181 115% => OK
Chars per words: 5.46302250804 5.08290768461 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.19942759058 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.00017058892 2.5805825403 116% => OK
Unique words: 154.0 145.348785872 106% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.495176848875 0.540411800872 92% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 521.1 419.366225166 124% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 3.25607064018 307% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 13.0662251656 145% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 21.2450331126 75% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 49.4990416539 49.2860985944 100% => OK
Chars per sentence: 89.4210526316 110.228320801 81% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.3684210526 21.698381199 75% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.52631578947 7.06452816374 92% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 4.33554083885 231% => Less positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 4.45695364238 67% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.27373068433 140% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.436672426858 0.272083759551 160% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.125119777319 0.0996497079465 126% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.205669310203 0.0662205650399 311% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.268603271399 0.162205337803 166% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.224769633354 0.0443174109184 507% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.5 13.3589403974 94% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 46.78 53.8541721854 87% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 11.0289183223 97% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.09 12.2367328918 115% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.49 8.42419426049 101% => OK
difficult_words: 80.0 63.6247240618 126% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 10.7273730684 107% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 10.498013245 80% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 71.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 21.5 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.