The passage and the professor discuss credibilty of online encyclopedias in comparison to old fashion printed ones. The author points out a few flaws of the online encyclpdeias to support validity of the printed ones. However, the lecturer retutes points made by the passage by bringing a few countering claims.
First, the lecturer talks about the errors that might be found in online encyclopedias. She claims that traditional encyclopedias are flawless either. In fact, there is no source of knowledge without mistake, regardless of its nature, online or offline. However, the offline sources cannot be corrected after they are printed. In contrast, online sources cannot easily be modifies later. This points refutes the points made by the passage that stated communal encyclopedias posses more flaws in comparison to traditional ones.
Second, the lecturer argues about the potential threat of online sourcres to be hacked. He mentions that there are several methods to preclude online sources from being hacked. For instance, some parts of the articles which are crucial, might be available in read-only format so that no one can change them anymore. Moreover, some special editors has been appointed to monitor articles before possible changes to take effect. These arguments contradicts the points states by the author of the passage which claimed printed encyclopedias are safer from being hacked.
Thirdly, the lecturer talks about the topics of the articles in encyclopedias. She raise the question: who is to judge what topics are important and what are not? In ordinary encyclopedias, a group of academic professionals decide about the topics to be chosen. Since they are faced with limited space to publish data, they have to omit some topics. However, the online sources let people chose what they like to be discussed. Therfore topics which are actually interesting to the public will be available online. These points refutes the passage that stated traditional encyclopedia include better and more important topics in comparison to online ones.
- In an effort to encourage ecologically sustainable forestry practices, an international organization started issuing certifications to wood companies that meet high ecological standards by conserving resources and recycling materials. Companies that rece 93
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?One of the best ways that parents can help their teenage children prepare for adult life is to encourage them to take a part-time job. 80
- It is more important to keep your old friends than it is to make new friends. 62
- Car manufacturers and governments have been eagerly seeking a replacement for the automobile's main source of power, the internal-combustion engine. By far the most promising alternative source of energy for cars is the hydrogen-based fuel-cell engine, wh 80
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? It is better to have broad knowledge of many academic subjects than to specialize in one specific subject. Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer. 80
These arguments contradicts the points states by the author ...
These arguments contradicts the points stated by the author ...
Sentence: She raise the question: who is to judge what topics are important and what are not?
Description: The fragment She raise the is rare
Suggestion: Possible agreement error: Replace raise with verb, past tense
Sentence: The passage and the professor discuss credibilty of online encyclopedias in comparison to old fashion printed ones.
Error: credibilty Suggestion: credibility
Sentence: The author points out a few flaws of the online encyclpdeias to support validity of the printed ones.
Error: encyclpdeias Suggestion: encyclopedias
Sentence: However, the lecturer retutes points made by the passage by bringing a few countering claims.
Error: retutes Suggestion: refutes
Sentence: Second, the lecturer argues about the potential threat of online sourcres to be hacked.
Error: sourcres Suggestion: sources
flaws:
No. of Words: 324 250
Avg. Sentence Length: 15.429 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 3.874 7.5
Attribute Value Ideal
Score: 24 in 30
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 2 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 4 2
No. of Sentences: 21 12
No. of Words: 324 250
No. of Characters: 1699 1200
No. of Different Words: 160 150
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.243 4.2
Average Word Length: 5.244 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.663 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 148 80
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 96 60
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 57 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 33 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 15.429 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 3.874 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.524 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.317 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.479 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.105 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 4