The reading and the lecture is about the benefits and problems of online encyclopedia, which is in many facets like a traditional encyclopedia, but with difference that any Internet user can contributes to it. Further, the article is mainly about the problems of the online encyclopedia compared to the traditional one. However, the lecturer casts doubts about the claims made in the article. She thinks, that online encyclopedia is superior in every aspect.
First, the author points out that any internet user can write an article without a sufficient academic credential. It is mentioned that traditional encyclopedias were written by trained professionals in their field rather than by some partially informed internet user. This point is challenged by the lecturer. She illustrates, that traditional encyclopedias were nowhere close to perfection. Further, she argues even if a mistake occurs in an online encyclopedia, it is much easier to correct this mistake than in a traditional offline encyclopedia.
Secondly, the author contends that online encyclopedia can be easily vandalized by users or hackers. The article mentions that if a change is taken, it is very difficult for unsuspicious user to find out the mistake. Conversely, the lecturer rebuts this argument. She illustrates that crucial facts in important articles is transformed in a reader-online format by the online encyclopedia providers. Moreover, she mentions that there are special editors with the main task to monitor the changes.
Finally, the author states that the encyclopedia emphasizes only trivial and popular topics. Thus, the article claims that some topics are not highlighted enough and thus has been put in a false comparison. On the other hand, the lecturer praises the diversity of the articles in online encyclopedias. She also declares that the traditional encyclopedias only have limited space and therefore it is not capable to cover a wide range of topics.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 192, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[2]
Message: The verb 'can' requires the base form of the verb: 'contribute'
Suggestion: contribute
...h difference that any Internet user can contributes to it. Further, the article is mainly a...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, conversely, finally, first, however, if, moreover, second, secondly, so, therefore, thus, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 15.1003584229 113% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 9.8082437276 31% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 13.8261648746 51% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 13.0 11.0286738351 118% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 43.0788530466 63% => OK
Preposition: 36.0 52.1666666667 69% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 8.0752688172 37% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1660.0 1977.66487455 84% => OK
No of words: 305.0 407.700716846 75% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.44262295082 4.8611393121 112% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.17902490978 4.48103885553 93% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.11790005061 2.67179642975 117% => OK
Unique words: 163.0 212.727598566 77% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.534426229508 0.524837075471 102% => OK
syllable_count: 540.0 618.680645161 87% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.51630824373 119% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 12.0 9.59856630824 125% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.994623655914 0% => OK
Article: 10.0 3.08781362007 324% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 0.0 3.51792114695 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.86738351254 54% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.94265232975 20% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 20.6003584229 87% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 20.1344086022 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 40.4257053658 48.9658058833 83% => OK
Chars per sentence: 92.2222222222 100.406767564 92% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.9444444444 20.6045352989 82% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.55555555556 5.45110844103 120% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.5376344086 18% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 11.8709677419 59% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 3.85842293907 207% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.88709677419 61% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.26793668122 0.236089414692 113% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0850189207601 0.076458572812 111% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0641944539655 0.0737576698707 87% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.16817069386 0.150856017488 111% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0469676503261 0.0645574589148 73% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.7 11.7677419355 108% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 38.31 58.1214874552 66% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.10430107527 144% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 10.1575268817 117% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.98 10.9000537634 128% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.68 8.01818996416 108% => OK
difficult_words: 82.0 86.8835125448 94% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 10.002688172 90% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 10.0537634409 84% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.247311828 88% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
We are expecting: No. of Words: 350 while No. of Different Words: 200
Better to have 5 paragraphs with 3 arguments. And try always support/against one side but compare two sides, like this:
para 1: introduction
para 2: reason 1. address both of the views presented for reason 1
para 3: reason 2. address both of the views presented for reason 2
para 4: reason 3. address both of the views presented for reason 3
para 5: conclusion.
So how to find out those reasons. There is a formula:
reasons == advantages or
reasons == disadvantages
for example, we can always apply 'save time', 'save/make money', 'find a job', 'make friends', 'get more information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.
or we can apply 'waste time', 'waste money', 'no job', 'make bad friends', 'get bad information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.
Rates: 70.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 21.0 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.