The extensive application of television for academic purposes has long been debated all over the world. While some people argue in favor of the merits, some firmly believe that it has been hackneyed and not feasible for academic purposes. However, we will discuss both views here.
The proponents in favor of television as an effective tool point out to the undeniable fact that an immense number of programs are being telecasted to aid pupils in their studies and career decision. In many countries, contents are deliberately being designed for learning purposes. For instance, a handful of channels in India, relay live programs for students to decide on their further education, where an expert would be available to resolve their queries. Furthermore, science channels contribute profoundly in enhancing children's knowledge as they showcase facts and scientific innovations in an engaging way.
Conversely, the argument being put forth by the opponents is that the business need for media is to captivate masses' attention and gain hefty profits. Therefore, their focus cannot be primarily on students.As a result, more shows in the peak hours are non-academic, whereas informative programs are being aired during after hours. It is in addition being said that the potency of those shows are certainly unquantifiable. For example, one cannot test the amount of information gained by a student after watching a science show, whereas, knowledge gained from books could be easily evaluated by conducting exams. For this apparent reason, television proves to be unsuccessful in aiding education.
On recapitulating all the points, although it appears TV delivers some appreciable number of shows to support learning, there is no viable way to quantify its outcomes. Also, the merits of traditional learning systems like books, lectures and other methods outweigh those of television. Hence, TV proves to remain an inefficient tool for teaching.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 597, Rule ID: IN_A_X_MANNER[1]
Message: Consider replacing "in an engaging way" with adverb for "engaging"; eg, "in a hasty manner" with "hastily".
...owcase facts and scientific innovations in an engaging way. Conversely, the argument being put ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 207, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: As
...r focus cannot be primarily on students.As a result, more shows in the peak hours ...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, conversely, furthermore, hence, however, if, so, therefore, whereas, while, for example, for instance, in addition, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 13.1623246493 152% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 7.85571142285 76% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 10.4138276553 48% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 5.0 7.30460921844 68% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 17.0 24.0651302605 71% => OK
Preposition: 42.0 41.998997996 100% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 8.3376753507 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1650.0 1615.20841683 102% => OK
No of words: 303.0 315.596192385 96% => OK
Chars per words: 5.44554455446 5.12529762239 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.17215713816 4.20363070211 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.90502540955 2.80592935109 104% => OK
Unique words: 193.0 176.041082164 110% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.63696369637 0.561755894193 113% => OK
syllable_count: 511.2 506.74238477 101% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 5.43587174349 55% => OK
Article: 5.0 2.52805611222 198% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.10420841683 143% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.76152304609 42% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 16.0721442886 93% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 20.2975951904 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 48.3608657215 49.4020404114 98% => OK
Chars per sentence: 110.0 106.682146367 103% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.2 20.7667163134 97% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.2 7.06120827912 130% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.01903807615 40% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.67935871743 104% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 3.9879759519 25% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 3.4128256513 147% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.124494657639 0.244688304435 51% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0454587700725 0.084324248473 54% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0455571502684 0.0667982634062 68% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0814337069505 0.151304729494 54% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0467213970224 0.056905535591 82% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.3 13.0946893788 109% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 42.72 50.2224549098 85% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 11.3001002004 109% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.33 12.4159519038 115% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.1 8.58950901804 118% => OK
difficult_words: 105.0 78.4519038076 134% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 9.78957915832 87% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.1190380762 99% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.7795591182 83% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 84.2696629213 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.5 Out of 9
---------------------
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.