tpo 6
The reading claims that online Communal encyclopedias are not as valuable as traditional encyclopedias and provides three reasons of support. However, the lecturer finds all the ideas dubious and provides several points to refute them all.
First, the author argues that people who contribute to writing online encyclopedia do not have enough knowledge about the field which they want to write about it. Conversely, the lecturer casts doubt on this idea by stating that traditional encyclopedias also have lots of errors and they have never been completely accurate. Moreover, she believes that it is much easier to correct the fallacious content of online encyclopedias that the traditional encyclopedias.
Furthermore, the reading passage holds the view that hackers can change the original content of online encyclopedias. In contrast, the lecturer underlines the fact that no one could change the crucial information of online encyclopedias and special editor supervise the changes which are made to different contents of these encyclopedias. Therefore, it is fallacious conclusion to say that people could easily change the online encyclopedias.
Finally, the reading asserts that the online encyclopedias pay more heed to the unimportant factors instead of essential topics. On the contrary, the speaker dismisses this issue due to the fact that traditional encyclopedias just speak about some important points and ignore other important points because they do not have enough space to cover every things. However, online encyclopedias do not have any space problem, so, they can cover diverse points. She also believes that it is the most important advantages of online encyclopedias.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 443, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...easily change the online encyclopedias. Finally, the reading asserts that the on...
^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'but', 'conversely', 'finally', 'first', 'furthermore', 'however', 'if', 'moreover', 'so', 'therefore', 'in contrast', 'on the contrary']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.224199288256 0.261695866417 86% => OK
Verbs: 0.156583629893 0.158904122519 99% => OK
Adjectives: 0.113879003559 0.0723426182421 157% => OK
Adverbs: 0.085409252669 0.0435111971325 196% => Less adverbs wanted.
Pronouns: 0.0427046263345 0.0277247811725 154% => OK
Prepositions: 0.0996441281139 0.128828473217 77% => OK
Participles: 0.0142348754448 0.0370669169778 38% => Some participles wanted.
Conjunctions: 3.03860907148 2.5805825403 118% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0320284697509 0.0208969081088 153% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.00154638098197 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.110320284698 0.128158765124 86% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0142348754448 0.0158828679856 90% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0106761565836 0.0114777025283 93% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 1697.0 1645.83664459 103% => OK
No of words: 257.0 271.125827815 95% => OK
Chars per words: 6.60311284047 6.08160592843 109% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.00390054096 4.04852973271 99% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.43579766537 0.374372842146 116% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.322957198444 0.287516216867 112% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.225680933852 0.187439937562 120% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.163424124514 0.113142543107 144% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.03860907148 2.5805825403 118% => OK
Unique words: 137.0 145.348785872 94% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.533073929961 0.539623497131 99% => OK
Word variations: 51.6717677932 53.8517498576 96% => OK
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0529801325 92% => OK
Sentence length: 21.4166666667 21.7502111507 98% => OK
Sentence length SD: 44.9025951984 49.3711431718 91% => OK
Chars per sentence: 141.416666667 132.220823453 107% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.4166666667 21.7502111507 98% => OK
Discourse Markers: 1.08333333333 0.878197800319 123% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 3.39072847682 29% => OK
Readability: 53.712386511 50.5018328374 106% => OK
Elegance: 1.1875 1.90840788429 62% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0 0.549887131256 0% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.144149939013 0.142949733639 101% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0749727082614 0.0787303798458 95% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.637597692423 0.631733273073 101% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.109139512761 0.139662658121 78% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0 0.266732575781 0% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.103435571967 0% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.414263158566 0.414875509568 100% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0754821536503 0.0530846634433 142% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0 0.40443939384 0% => The content is off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0528353158467 0% => The ideas may be duplicated in paragraphs.
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 4.33554083885 161% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.26048565121 0% => More neutral sentences wanted.
Positive topic words: 7.0 3.49668874172 200% => OK
Negative topic words: 5.0 3.62251655629 138% => OK
Neutral topic words: 0.0 3.1766004415 0% => More neutral topic words wanted.
Total topic words: 12.0 10.2958057395 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.0 Out of 30
---------------------
Note: This is not the final score. 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.