The reading passage and the lecture discuss the growing trend of online news. While the reading passage explains the harmful effects of getting reports online, the professor refutes those points.
First, the reading passage claims that many people get their news online through social media, which can be harmful since users can post whatever they want without checking the facts. Also, there is a high chance that they can also present incorrect information as factual, causing perplexity. However, the professor states that social media can be a good news feed, such as about disasters. He reasons that social media delivers information quickly, making it can be effective in these types of situations.
Second, the reading passage mentions that official news sites are also detrimental because they have many advertisements. As an illustration, Native advertising disguises itself as official content, decreasing readers' critical thinking skills. Nevertheless, the professor contends that print media is equally harmful. Affluent people who own newspapers would want to protect their political and financial interests, so they may not publish information that harms those interests; thus, newspapers are also deceptive.
Lastly, the author points out online news reduces readers' attention spans. As a result, journalists have to write simpler, shorter articles, affecting the quality of future publications. Professor encounters again how the future of the media must adapt to meet the needs of modern readers. Although readers may not be able to focus on traditional articles, journalists can make the content more engaging using formats like videos or interactive websites. Hence, future news will be distinctive but not necessarily worse.
To sum up, both the writer and professor hold conflicting views about digital and print media. It is clear that they will have trouble finding common ground on this issue.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, hence, however, lastly, may, nevertheless, second, so, thus, while, such as, as a result, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 15.1003584229 66% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 9.8082437276 122% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 13.8261648746 43% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 10.0 11.0286738351 91% => OK
Pronoun: 23.0 43.0788530466 53% => OK
Preposition: 22.0 52.1666666667 42% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 5.0 8.0752688172 62% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1637.0 1977.66487455 83% => OK
No of words: 293.0 407.700716846 72% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.58703071672 4.8611393121 115% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.13729897018 4.48103885553 92% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.67521934894 2.67179642975 100% => OK
Unique words: 186.0 212.727598566 87% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.634812286689 0.524837075471 121% => OK
syllable_count: 486.9 618.680645161 79% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.51630824373 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 9.59856630824 21% => OK
Article: 7.0 3.08781362007 227% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 4.0 3.51792114695 114% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.86738351254 0% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.94265232975 20% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 20.6003584229 83% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 17.0 20.1344086022 84% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 37.3285237469 48.9658058833 76% => OK
Chars per sentence: 96.2941176471 100.406767564 96% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.2352941176 20.6045352989 84% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.88235294118 5.45110844103 126% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.53405017921 110% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.5376344086 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 11.8709677419 59% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 3.85842293907 104% => OK
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: 0.0256772439228 0.236089414692 11% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.00908408066142 0.076458572812 12% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0179482926772 0.0737576698707 24% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0150244679857 0.150856017488 10% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.00992263321342 0.0645574589148 15% => 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: 13.5 11.7677419355 115% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 45.76 58.1214874552 79% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.10430107527 51% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 10.1575268817 109% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.85 10.9000537634 136% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.6 8.01818996416 120% => OK
difficult_words: 95.0 86.8835125448 109% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.002688172 80% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.0537634409 88% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 10.247311828 146% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 3.33333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.