communal encyclopaedias
Both the reading and the lecture are about the attractiveness of online encyclopaedias and the factors that limit its usage. While the author advocates that negative results outweighs positive impact, the lecturer casts doubt on the claims made in the article. She claims that negative effect is greatly exaggerated.
Firstly, as the first limiting factor the writer states the lack of academic credentials of editors of online encyclopaedias, which make their contribution far less reliable. By the way of contrast, the lecturer posits that errors are also common in traditional format of books. Moreover, she points out that the simplicity of making changes in the online format make it a better source of information than the printed books, where the errors may be present for decades.
Secondly, according to the reading passage the threats in the face of hackers from the outside bring additional troubles in using the online format. The lecturer declined with this statement either. She contends that the online sources use two strategies in order to protect themselves from possible attacks. Those strategies include the use of format which cannot be changed and the regular monitoring of articles from special employees, who work as day-to-day editors. Therefore, the professor’s point is opposed to that of the author’s in the reading passage.
Thirdly, the text elaborates on the fact that communal encyclopaedias concentrate mostly on the popular topics, missing several important data. However, the woman disagrees with that statement and claims that online format has unlimited space and allows to focus deeply in the topics. Indeed, the books have insufficient space and should be focused primarily on the most important facts of the topics. In addition, the greater diversity of view and articles faster the reliability and popularity of communal encyclopaedias.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-07-11 | keisham | 83 | view |
| 2020-12-26 | Winner_007 | 80 | view |
| 2020-12-26 | Winner_007 | 70 | view |
| 2020-10-11 | alex2110 | 85 | view |
| 2019-12-04 | Luis Cortes | 86 | view |
- The wooly mammoth was a prehistoric animal that resembled an elephant and lived during the Ica Age Some versions of the species are known to have survived until 6000 BCE Its extinction is best explained by a combination of climate change and over hunting 73
- Communal encyclopaedia 70
- Some young adults want independence from their parents as soon as possible Other young adults prefer to live with their families for a longer time Which of these situations do you think is better 90
- Archaeologists have recently found a fossil of a 150 million year old mammal known as Repenornamus robustus R robustus Interestingly the mammal s stomach contained the remains of a psittacosaur dinosaur Some researchers have therefore suggested that R rob 3
- Private collectors have been selling and buying fossils the petrified remains of ancient organisms ever since the eighteenth century In recent years however the sale of fossils particularly of dinosaurs and other large vertebrates has grown into a big bus 68
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 255, Rule ID: ALLOW_TO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'focusing', 'focussing'? Or maybe you should add a pronoun? In active voice, 'allow' + 'to' takes an object, usually a pronoun.
Suggestion: focusing; focussing
...e format has unlimited space and allows to focus deeply in the topics. Indeed, the books...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, however, may, moreover, second, secondly, so, therefore, third, thirdly, while, in addition, by the way
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 7.0 10.4613686534 67% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 5.04856512141 59% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 7.30242825607 110% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 12.0772626932 116% => OK
Pronoun: 19.0 22.412803532 85% => OK
Preposition: 42.0 30.3222958057 139% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1592.0 1373.03311258 116% => OK
No of words: 293.0 270.72406181 108% => OK
Chars per words: 5.43344709898 5.08290768461 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.13729897018 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.85904988916 2.5805825403 111% => OK
Unique words: 174.0 145.348785872 120% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.59385665529 0.540411800872 110% => OK
syllable_count: 495.9 419.366225166 118% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 37.979760692 49.2860985944 77% => OK
Chars per sentence: 106.133333333 110.228320801 96% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.5333333333 21.698381199 90% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.66666666667 7.06452816374 123% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.27373068433 47% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.107408948825 0.272083759551 39% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0359991083521 0.0996497079465 36% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0785125074664 0.0662205650399 119% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0626482522374 0.162205337803 39% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0745038660362 0.0443174109184 168% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.9 13.3589403974 104% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 43.73 53.8541721854 81% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 11.0289183223 108% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.21 12.2367328918 116% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.86 8.42419426049 117% => OK
difficult_words: 98.0 63.6247240618 154% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 10.7273730684 84% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.0 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.