The reading and the lecture are both about professors appearing as guests on television programs. The author of the reading believes that the appearance of a professor on a TV show will be beneficial for the public, the university of the professor and the professor himself. The lecturer casts doubt on the claims made in the article. She thinks that it will have more disadvantageous rather than advantageous.
First the author points out that by sharing his idea with a greater audience over the television, the professor will gain reputation outside of his academic field. It is mentioned that the professor’s importance as scholar is enhanced. This point is challenged by the lecturer. She illustrates that the professor as a TV celebrity will lose his reputation as a serious scholar. Furthermore, she argues that these "TV celebrities" will not be invited to important conferences. Moreover, she states that being an expert for the television will take a lot of time which can be better used for lectures and researches.
Secondly, the author states that the general public will gain real insights from experts of the different field. The lecturer rebuts this argument. She elaborates on this by mentioning that many TV viewer do not want complicated insight talks about certain topics. Moreover, she mentions that the television is more interested in their title rather than their expertise. For most of the viewer, a short summarize would be sufficient, which also TV commentator can offer.
Finally, the author states also that the universities will benefit from the appearance of their professors on TV. The article notes that it will increase the reputation of the universities and thus more donations and more applications of potential students can be received. However, the lecturer does not elaborate on this argument.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 276, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...he professor and the professor himself. The lecturer casts doubt on the claims made...
^^^
Line 5, column 38, Rule ID: GENERAL_XX[1]
Message: Use simply 'public'.
Suggestion: public
... Secondly, the author states that the general public will gain real insights from experts of...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, furthermore, however, if, moreover, second, secondly, so, thus
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 10.4613686534 105% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 5.04856512141 257% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 12.0772626932 116% => OK
Pronoun: 33.0 22.412803532 147% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 30.0 30.3222958057 99% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 5.01324503311 180% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1561.0 1373.03311258 114% => OK
No of words: 296.0 270.72406181 109% => OK
Chars per words: 5.27364864865 5.08290768461 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.14784890444 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.04300013131 2.5805825403 118% => OK
Unique words: 153.0 145.348785872 105% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.516891891892 0.540411800872 96% => OK
syllable_count: 477.9 419.366225166 114% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 3.25607064018 246% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Interrogative: 0.0 0.116997792494 0% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => 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: 18.0 13.0662251656 138% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 21.2450331126 75% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 39.2757346632 49.2860985944 80% => OK
Chars per sentence: 86.7222222222 110.228320801 79% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.4444444444 21.698381199 76% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.94444444444 7.06452816374 70% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => 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 : 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: 0.107486654669 0.272083759551 40% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0390725972257 0.0996497079465 39% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0492776403953 0.0662205650399 74% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0759176870412 0.162205337803 47% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0312732619938 0.0443174109184 71% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.6 13.3589403974 87% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 55.24 53.8541721854 103% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 11.0289183223 86% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.99 12.2367328918 106% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.43 8.42419426049 100% => OK
difficult_words: 75.0 63.6247240618 118% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 10.7273730684 84% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 10.498013245 80% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 85.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 25.5 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.