Imagine that you are in a classroom or a meeting. The teacher or the meeting leader says something incorrect In your opinion, which of the following is the best thing to do?
•Interrupt and correct the mistake right away.
•Wait until the class or meeting is over and the people are gone, and then talk to the teacher or meeting leader.
•Say nothing.
Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer.
No one can cast a shadow of doubt on the fact that faults in different activity in normal and everybody could make a mistake. People knowledge and their abilities in varieties of situations are different. Not all people concur when this issue arises. Being cognizant to the logic behind those who repudiate or endorse the legitimacy of this contention, not having any biased perception, I presume that, if I would be supposed to choose one of these three options, I opt the second one. I should talk to the person who made a mistake after his presentation and discussed around that fault. Among a plentitude of reasons in support of this assertion, avoid of distraction between the lecture and the ethical purpose could be picked out for further analysis.
To commence with, a consensus has yet to be reached; however, regarding the importance of looking at all positive and negative aspect of anything based upon the statistics of different general questionnaires of many universities, lecturer are unanimous about the conviction that noticing their faults between their talk made them depart from the main points of topics which they intended to argue about them; moreover, this correction injects them a lot of stress and in most of the time they cannot control themselves. Indeed, they forget many clues and their presentation will be out of standard. In addition, they lose their self-confident and become mute. A vivid example can be given to shed light on what was elaborated above. The last semester, between my defense seminar for my thesis, one of advisers doubts about one of my thesis’s diagrams and ask a haphazard question. I asked that question correctly but this question enhanced my stress and I could not perform as well as my practices before the main defense.
In addition to the reason raised above; ethics could also substantiate the justifiability of the claim made at the outset of this essay. In conjunction with public belief, we should follow moral aspects of life in their behavior in any position, and think about some consequences of our interrupting movement in the results of other people’s efforts. While it is possible for us to occur the similar situation and it requires us to behave in right way. The results of a study carried out by Rice University’s graduate students unveiled that 98 percent of students of this university believed that talking about their fault in the presentation are more productive for them and they prefer this option for themselves.
Drawing upon of the above reasons, discreetly put, as far as my personal perspective on the topic is concerned. I reiterate that correcting of people faults after their lecture are more better. Not only this behavior could not distract them but also it is more ethical.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 6, column 150, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...d. I reiterate that correcting of people faults after their lecture are more bett...
^^
Line 6, column 183, Rule ID: MOST_COMPARATIVE[2]
Message: Use only 'better' (without 'more') when you use the comparative.
Suggestion: better
... people faults after their lecture are more better. Not only this behavior could not distr...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, however, if, look, moreover, regarding, second, so, well, while, in addition, talking about, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 15.1003584229 93% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 9.8082437276 122% => OK
Conjunction : 17.0 13.8261648746 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 11.0286738351 109% => OK
Pronoun: 60.0 43.0788530466 139% => OK
Preposition: 80.0 52.1666666667 153% => OK
Nominalization: 20.0 8.0752688172 248% => Less nominalization wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2329.0 1977.66487455 118% => OK
No of words: 463.0 407.700716846 114% => OK
Chars per words: 5.03023758099 4.8611393121 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.63868890866 4.48103885553 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.84972484015 2.67179642975 107% => OK
Unique words: 263.0 212.727598566 124% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.568034557235 0.524837075471 108% => OK
syllable_count: 735.3 618.680645161 119% => 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
Interrogative: 0.0 0.994623655914 0% => OK
Article: 4.0 3.08781362007 130% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 3.51792114695 85% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.86738351254 54% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.94265232975 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 20.6003584229 92% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 20.1344086022 119% => OK
Sentence length SD: 106.211413068 48.9658058833 217% => The lengths of sentences changed so frequently.
Chars per sentence: 122.578947368 100.406767564 122% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.3684210526 20.6045352989 118% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.0 5.45110844103 110% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.5376344086 36% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 11.8709677419 51% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 3.85842293907 207% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.88709677419 102% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0289418996955 0.236089414692 12% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.00903904882377 0.076458572812 12% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0137111037604 0.0737576698707 19% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0187007861752 0.150856017488 12% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.00689043527657 0.0645574589148 11% => 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: 14.4 11.7677419355 122% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 47.12 58.1214874552 81% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.10430107527 144% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 10.1575268817 125% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.19 10.9000537634 112% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.36 8.01818996416 117% => OK
difficult_words: 133.0 86.8835125448 153% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.002688172 110% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 10.0537634409 115% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 10.247311828 127% => 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.
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.