Professors are normally found in university classrooms, offices, and libraries doing research and lecturing to their students. More and more, however, they also appear as guests on television news programs, giving expert commentary on the latest events in the world. These television appearances are of great benefit to the profes sors themselves as well as to their universities and the general public.
Professors benefit from appearing on television because by doing so they acquire reputations as authorities in their academic fields among a much wider audience than they have on campus. If a professor publishes views in an academic journal, only other scholars will learn about and appreciate those views. But when a professor appears on TV, thousands of people outside the narrow academic community become aware of the professor's ideas. So when professors share their ideas with a television audience, the professors' importance as scholars is enhanced.
Universities also benefit from such appearances. The universities receive posi tive publicity when their professors appear on TV. When people see a knowledge able faculty member of a university on television, they think more highly of that university. That then leads to an improved reputation for the university. And that improved reputation in turn leads to more donations for the university and more applications from potential students.
Finally, the public gains from professors' appearing on television. Most tele vision viewers normally have no contact with university professors. When profes sors appear on television, viewers have a chance to learn from experts and to be exposed to views they might otherwise never hear about. Television is generally a medium for commentary that tends to be superficial, not deep or thoughtful. From professors on television, by contrast, viewers get a taste of real expertise and
insight.
The reading states that professor should appear on the new television programs and provides 3 reasons of support. The lecturer says that though they have received abundant benefits both themselves and public, they should not do it. Moreover, the lecturer also refutes each of the author’s reason.
To begin with, the author mentions that professors get the advantage in part of popular and reputation not only themselves but also their university. Furthermore, when professors distribute their knowledges with a television audience, their ideas will be communicate on more people more than only academic journals. This specific argument is challenged by the lecturer. She claims that a television audience may not be interesting the professors because most of viewers like an entertainment varieties so as to relax themselves. Additionally, a television program may not relate with the academic conference which is mainly responsible of professors as a result they lose the research funding.
Secondly, the article posits that the university and campus of their professors living have more extremely chance for getting donation from the government and audience. However, the lecture argues that professors spend a lot of time preparing for the television program because professors need to prepare not only presentation but also uniform suite. As a result, many students have tremendously been affected from missing teaching of professors.
Finally, the reading suggests that most television vision viewers can contact with professors by pass a television program and understanding in deep details more than news general reporter. The speaker opposes this point by explaining that audiences may not be interested in thought information. Almost television viewers want to only some backgrounds or brief details that these do not different from normal news reporter.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 455, Rule ID: MOST_SOME_OF_NNS[1]
Message: After 'most of', you should use 'the' ('most of the viewers') or simply say ''most viewers''.
Suggestion: most of the viewers; most viewers
...t be interesting the professors because most of viewers like an entertainment varieties so as t...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 503, Rule ID: SO_AS_TO[1]
Message: Use simply 'to'
Suggestion: to
...viewers like an entertainment varieties so as to relax themselves. Additionally, a telev...
^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 97, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...pus of their professors living have more extremely chance for getting donation fr...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, furthermore, however, if, may, moreover, second, secondly, so, as to, as a result, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 6.0 10.4613686534 57% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 5.04856512141 158% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 22.412803532 107% => OK
Preposition: 28.0 30.3222958057 92% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 5.01324503311 219% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1604.0 1373.03311258 117% => OK
No of words: 283.0 270.72406181 105% => OK
Chars per words: 5.66784452297 5.08290768461 112% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.10153676581 4.04702891845 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.97947546267 2.5805825403 115% => OK
Unique words: 168.0 145.348785872 116% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.593639575972 0.540411800872 110% => OK
syllable_count: 488.7 419.366225166 117% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 40.5543852532 49.2860985944 82% => OK
Chars per sentence: 114.571428571 110.228320801 104% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.2142857143 21.698381199 93% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.28571428571 7.06452816374 117% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 4.33554083885 161% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => 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: 0.270005252109 0.272083759551 99% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0833597437037 0.0996497079465 84% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0529203193081 0.0662205650399 80% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.156449998284 0.162205337803 96% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0141153777899 0.0443174109184 32% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.4 13.3589403974 115% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 42.72 53.8541721854 79% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 11.0289183223 112% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.61 12.2367328918 128% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.37 8.42419426049 111% => OK
difficult_words: 85.0 63.6247240618 134% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 10.7273730684 79% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 25.0 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.