online encyclopedias
The article states that even though online encyclopedias have several benefits, their values are less than printed encyclopedias. However, the proffesor expalins that online encyclopedias are not perfect but she thinks that author is prejudice about traditional encyclopedias and refutes each of the article's reasons.
First, the reading states that online encyclopedias have errors. The professor refutes this point by stating that errors are inevitable in both traditional and online encyclopedias. She explains that communal online encyclopedias have an advantage that traditionals ones don't have. Possiblity of correction. She says that errors of online encyclopedias can be correct but errors of printed encyclopedias remian for several years.
Second, the article claims that hackers and vandals have apportunity to hack and change the information of online encyclopedias. However, the professor contends that some features has been added to online encyclopedias to protect online informations. She notices that there are some people to check and accept the changes considering the validation of changes.
Third, the reading avers that online encyclopedias focus too frequently. The lecture opposes this point by saying that the limited information of printed encyclopedias doesn't mean they are important. She states that traditional encyclopedias don't have a lot of intersting topics but in online encyclopedias you can find a lot of academic and diversity is one of the important advantages of communal online encyclopedias.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-11-16 | TiOluwani97 | 87 | view |
| 2023-07-11 | keisham | 83 | view |
| 2023-07-06 | nilav | view | |
| 2023-04-05 | Dat_Nguyen | 70 | view |
| 2022-12-28 | MotherAstronaut | 85 | view |
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? It is important to know about events happening around the world, even if it is unlikely that they will affect your daily life. Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer. 76
- TPO_43 the agnostides 75
- TPO 47: integrated writing 73
- online encyclopedias 60
- People today spent too much time on personal enjoyment "doing things they like do rather than things they should do. 68
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 272, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...ave an advantage that traditionals ones dont have. Possiblity of correction. She say...
^^^^
Line 4, column 168, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...ed information of printed encyclopedias doesnt mean they are important. She states tha...
^^^^^^
Line 4, column 242, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...e states that traditional encyclopedias dont have a lot of intersting topics but in ...
^^^^
Line 4, column 320, Rule ID: A_LOT_OF_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun academic seems to be countable; consider using: 'a lot of academics'.
Suggestion: a lot of academics
...ut in online encyclopedias you can find a lot of academic and diversity is one of the important a...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, second, so, third, as to
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 10.4613686534 86% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 5.04856512141 40% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 12.0772626932 116% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 22.412803532 107% => OK
Preposition: 21.0 30.3222958057 69% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1311.0 1373.03311258 95% => OK
No of words: 225.0 270.72406181 83% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.82666666667 5.08290768461 115% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.87298334621 4.04702891845 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.23041105056 2.5805825403 125% => OK
Unique words: 116.0 145.348785872 80% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.515555555556 0.540411800872 95% => OK
syllable_count: 423.0 419.366225166 101% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.9 1.55342163355 122% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 0.0 2.5761589404 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 21.2450331126 80% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 47.695161205 49.2860985944 97% => OK
Chars per sentence: 100.846153846 110.228320801 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.3076923077 21.698381199 80% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.46153846154 7.06452816374 49% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 4.19205298013 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.27373068433 70% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.59144344814 0.272083759551 217% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.253276908359 0.0996497079465 254% => Sentence topic similarity is high.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.15400788081 0.0662205650399 233% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.426038736362 0.162205337803 263% => Maybe some contents are duplicated.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0650140882965 0.0443174109184 147% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.7 13.3589403974 110% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 28.84 53.8541721854 54% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 11.2 5.55761589404 202% => Smog_index is high.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.5 11.0289183223 122% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.24 12.2367328918 133% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.41 8.42419426049 100% => OK
difficult_words: 56.0 63.6247240618 88% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.498013245 84% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.