Imagine that you are in a classroom or a meeting. The teacher or the leader say something incorrect, In your opinion, which of the following is the best thing to do? 1. Interrupt and correct the mistake right away; 2. Wait until the class or meeting is over and people are gone, and then talk the teacher or meeting leader; 3. Say nothing.
Deciding how to react class="when">when class="we">we find the speaker's class="view">view contradicts class="our">our opinion especially in the meeting or class is controversial. Whether some people believe that it is better not to put themselves in the trouble and remain silent, others believe that the speaker should be informed either by interrupting right away or wait until the end of the meeting or session and then tell class="our">our idea to the speaker. In my point of class="view">view, waiting till the end of the meeting and then tell talk to the teacher or meeting a leader is more appropriate since in this way class="we">we avoid embarrassing the lecturer.
First of all, by cutting off someone's speech and correcting the errors right way, class="we">we may embarrass the lecture in front of audiences. Although I firmly believe that it is necessary to inform the lecturer of the mistakes to avoid repeating it in the future, I also consider it to be done in the right situation such as after the meeting or the class. For instance, I remember a time class="when">when my math teacher wrote the answer of question wrongly and one of the students mentioned his mistake in front of the class and all the students laughed the teacher. He became so embarrassed and his emotions were affected.
Another reason is that interrupting others may distract the audiences thus the pace of the presentation might be influenced. class="when">when someone cut off the speech of the other, it might cause a distraction either for audiences or the speaker. In that case, maybe the speaker forgets about the topic speaking about and lose the points. To be clear, imagine a meeting in which the leader has short of time for presentation, by interrupting, the time which was donated for the meeting is spent on the errors and mistakes which makes the audiences confuse and may not lead to the point of conversation.
In conclusion, there are several ways to cope with the situation class="when">when someone makes errors like interrupting immediately, telling at the end of the meeting or be silent and not to put ourselves in trouble. In my perspective, talking to the speaker class="when">when others are gone is more polite since the speaker is not embarrassed and the listeners are not distracted.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...t;we avoid embarrassing the lecturer. First of all, by cutting off someones sp...
^^^^
Line 7, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...assed and his emotions were affected. Another reason is that interrupting othe...
^^^^
Line 9, column 126, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Class
...f the presentation might be influenced. class='when'>when someone cut of...
^^^^^
Line 11, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ot lead to the point of conversation. In conclusion, there are several ways to...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, may, so, then, thus, for instance, in conclusion, speaking about, such as, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 15.1003584229 119% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 9.8082437276 61% => OK
Conjunction : 19.0 13.8261648746 137% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 11.0286738351 118% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 43.0788530466 63% => OK
Preposition: 53.0 52.1666666667 102% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 8.0752688172 99% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2090.0 1977.66487455 106% => OK
No of words: 377.0 407.700716846 92% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.54376657825 4.8611393121 114% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.4064143971 4.48103885553 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 4.97853323659 2.67179642975 186% => OK
Unique words: 183.0 212.727598566 86% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.485411140584 0.524837075471 92% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 611.1 618.680645161 99% => 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: 1.0 3.08781362007 32% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 3.51792114695 142% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.86738351254 0% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.94265232975 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 20.6003584229 63% => 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: 29.0 20.1344086022 144% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 67.8771950619 48.9658058833 139% => OK
Chars per sentence: 160.769230769 100.406767564 160% => OK
Words per sentence: 29.0 20.6045352989 141% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.69230769231 5.45110844103 141% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.5376344086 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 11.8709677419 17% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 3.85842293907 285% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.88709677419 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.145310674854 0.236089414692 62% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0633201611096 0.076458572812 83% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0454511160955 0.0737576698707 62% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0989499996301 0.150856017488 66% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0300804979596 0.0645574589148 47% => 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: 19.2 11.7677419355 163% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 42.04 58.1214874552 72% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 6.10430107527 183% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.6 10.1575268817 144% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.44 10.9000537634 142% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.22 8.01818996416 103% => OK
difficult_words: 75.0 86.8835125448 86% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 20.0 10.002688172 200% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.6 10.0537634409 135% => OK
text_standard: 20.0 10.247311828 195% => 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: 68.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 20.5 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.