Agree or disagree: News sources in the past were more concerned about the accuracy of the news compared to the news sources today.
Throughout history, people have been tried to be aware of update news regarding political, financial, etc. situations of the societies by various news sources such as television and newspaper; o important are these sources that they always play a prominent role in people’s attitudes and reactions. In this case, some controversy arises as to in which time news sources have been more concerned about the accuracy of the news. There is a common idea stating that in the past, news sources were more worried about the accuracy of the news compared to today. I am personally onboard with this notion. In the subsequent paragraphs, I will elucidate my points of view in two reasons.
The first reason paramount reason that crosses my mind is that nowadays, publishers have to be more cautious about their audiences. Indeed, a majority of news audiences are able to recognize fake news by comparing them to others. Therefore, if these sources don’t notice the importance of accuracy, they will definitely lose most of their adherents. However, in the past, people couldn’t be aware of many news owing to the bereft of technology. Take, for instance, a very popular and famous Iranian political program on television. Should the presenter of this program doesn’t tell the truth about the political relationships between Iran and other foreign countries, Iranian individuals will easily understand whether these stories are fake by searching them on the internet and comparing them with other news. Consequently, they will never follow that program on TV and the program’s reputation will be harmed.
Another interesting reason which deserves some words here is that these days, being careless of the validity of published materials can lead to some stiff punishments from the governments. It stands to reason that there are a considerable number of strict rules for the rightness of official publishing. Therefore, if news sources are not worried enough about the accuracy of their news, they will encounter negative consequences. On the other hand, these rules were in fewer numbers and lighter in the past. Let’s take the same aforementioned political program as an example, noticing that this program tells lies, the Iranian government starts to call the producers to account in the court and maybe the program makers will be sent to the jail due to their mistakes.
To wrap everything up in the end, having analyzed the preceding ideas, one can conclude that today’s news sources are more concerned about accuracy than they were in the past. This is because not only being careless may result in losing their audiences but also they may encounter negative consequences of disobeying the rules. Thus, I hope that this progress in attracting people’s trust will be increased as time goes by.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 411, Rule ID: MANY_FEW_UNCOUNTABLE[2]
Message: Use 'much' or 'little' with uncountable nouns.
Suggestion: much; little
... past, people couldn't be aware of many news owing to the bereft of technology....
^^^^
Line 3, column 411, Rule ID: MANY_NN_U[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun news seems to be uncountable; consider using: 'much news', 'a good deal of news'.
Suggestion: much news; a good deal of news
... past, people couldn't be aware of many news owing to the bereft of technology. Take...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 934, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ogram's reputation will be harmed. Another interesting reason which deserve...
^^^^
Line 5, column 435, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...rust will be increased as time goes by.
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, consequently, first, however, if, may, regarding, so, therefore, thus, as to, for instance, such as, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 23.0 15.1003584229 152% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 9.8082437276 133% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 13.8261648746 65% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 11.0286738351 109% => OK
Pronoun: 41.0 43.0788530466 95% => OK
Preposition: 70.0 52.1666666667 134% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 8.0752688172 50% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2385.0 1977.66487455 121% => OK
No of words: 455.0 407.700716846 112% => OK
Chars per words: 5.24175824176 4.8611393121 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.61852021839 4.48103885553 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.85462611048 2.67179642975 107% => OK
Unique words: 238.0 212.727598566 112% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.523076923077 0.524837075471 100% => OK
syllable_count: 740.7 618.680645161 120% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.51630824373 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 9.59856630824 94% => OK
Article: 4.0 3.08781362007 130% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.51792114695 57% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.86738351254 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.94265232975 121% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 20.6003584229 102% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 20.1344086022 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 58.4323552157 48.9658058833 119% => OK
Chars per sentence: 113.571428571 100.406767564 113% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.6666666667 20.6045352989 105% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.14285714286 5.45110844103 113% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.5376344086 72% => 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: 6.0 4.88709677419 123% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.39070924977 0.236089414692 165% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.134502603341 0.076458572812 176% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.180197751389 0.0737576698707 244% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.273528687931 0.150856017488 181% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.146654833106 0.0645574589148 227% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.1 11.7677419355 120% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 58.1214874552 86% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.10430107527 144% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 10.1575268817 113% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.11 10.9000537634 120% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.7 8.01818996416 109% => OK
difficult_words: 116.0 86.8835125448 134% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 10.002688172 115% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.0537634409 103% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 10.247311828 117% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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: 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.