Communal Online and Traditional Printed Encyclopedia
Both the reading passage and lecture discusses about the communal online encyclopedia and traditional printed encyclopedia. Whilst the author claim that the there are several issues associated with the former one mentioning three specific reasons-- relating to inaccuracy of information, possibility of information damage, and presentation of unnecessary topics, the lecturer provides the opinion at odd with the authors claims maintaining several points which will be discussed in detail in the following paragraphs.
The author, in the reading, begins by mentioning that due to lesser number of academic credentials, there are number of errors associated with the information provided in the communal online encyclopedia; however, the lecturer refutes the particular claim by stating that neither one of these encyclopedias are close to perfect. In addition, the advantages of the communal online outweighs the traditional printed encyclopedia. Further, she adds that by using the read-only format for the paramount information in it, the encyclopedia surely preserves the accuracy of the information provided there with falsifies the authors claim.
The writer further asserts that though the initial entries my be highly reliable but several successive correction facility afforded by the encyclopedia may facilitate the interference by non-ethical individuals-- such as vandals or hackers. The speaker questions the argument presented by author affirming that such encyclopedias have facility of special editors whose duty is to look after or maneuver the changes made by others. It will certainly help to avoid the bogus or corrupt information which strongly conflicts with authors opinion.
Finally, the reading article posits that communal encyclopedias covers great details about the topics that may be unnecessary to deal with. As opposed to authors opinion, the lecturer argues that it affords the great range of space among the people as per their needs which lacks in traditional ones. On top of that, she suggests that diverse range of space will certainly be helpful for everyone to explore more rather than having limited amount of information.
To summarize, the speaker and author holds opposite view on the communal online encyclopedia and traditional printed encyclopedia which will create difficulty for both of them in finding common ground.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-11-16 | TiOluwani97 | 87 | view |
| 2023-07-18 | M. MEHRABI KERMANI | 80 | view |
| 2023-07-11 | keisham | 83 | view |
| 2023-04-05 | Dat_Nguyen | 70 | view |
| 2022-12-28 | MotherAstronaut | 85 | view |
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 60, Rule ID: MY_BE[1]
Message: Did you mean 'may be' or 'might be'?
Suggestion: may be; might be
...asserts that though the initial entries my be highly reliable but several successive ...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 155, Rule ID: TO_NON_BASE[1]
Message: The verb after "to" should be in the base form: 'author'.
Suggestion: author
...unnecessary to deal with. As opposed to authors opinion, the lecturer argues that it af...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, however, if, look, may, so, in addition, such as, on top of that
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 10.4613686534 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 12.0772626932 132% => OK
Pronoun: 20.0 22.412803532 89% => OK
Preposition: 51.0 30.3222958057 168% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 5.01324503311 239% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2022.0 1373.03311258 147% => OK
No of words: 354.0 270.72406181 131% => OK
Chars per words: 5.71186440678 5.08290768461 112% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.33761313653 4.04702891845 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.98615764427 2.5805825403 116% => OK
Unique words: 193.0 145.348785872 133% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.545197740113 0.540411800872 101% => OK
syllable_count: 638.1 419.366225166 152% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.55342163355 116% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 29.0 21.2450331126 137% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 84.8148309882 49.2860985944 172% => OK
Chars per sentence: 168.5 110.228320801 153% => OK
Words per sentence: 29.5 21.698381199 136% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.5 7.06452816374 92% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 4.33554083885 208% => Less positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 4.45695364238 45% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.27373068433 23% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.363806939121 0.272083759551 134% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.186562028051 0.0996497079465 187% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.232739808776 0.0662205650399 351% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.238297216753 0.162205337803 147% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.141670985061 0.0443174109184 320% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 20.2 13.3589403974 151% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 25.12 53.8541721854 47% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 13.0 5.55761589404 234% => Smog_index is high.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 17.0 11.0289183223 154% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.43 12.2367328918 134% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.98 8.42419426049 118% => OK
difficult_words: 110.0 63.6247240618 173% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 21.0 10.7273730684 196% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.6 10.498013245 130% => OK
text_standard: 21.0 11.2008830022 187% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
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.