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.
It cannot be denied that almost all of us encounter some difficulties while in a talk or a presentation, however, there are some ways we can handle these issues. Even though ''saying nothing'' and ''interrupting presentation and making fault as true'' seem fine to fix a situation, I would opt for "waiting until the presentation or meeting is finished and then personally speak teacher or leader of the meeting" to cope with the issue. This is preferable in terms of privacy and influence.
Privacy is, maybe, one of the key factors in saying the truth. Privacy is a right to keep one's matters secret. Thanks to this, one can say someone's mistakes or faults by using it. For example, when I realize that there is a misunderstanding or incorrect information suggested by a talker, I probably do not disturb the talk. During a process, interfering creates a loose both speaker and audiences' focus. Furthermore, saying that you are wrong about that point breaks the talker's aspiration. The meeting may go inefficiently because of errors. But, choosing to say those mistakes after a talk is over is a great opportunity to learn the right thing about what is mentioned. In a private way of speech is a good choice.
In addition to privacy, influence is another notable reason for waiting for the end of the talk. Influence is an impression on something or someone. Owing to have this, showing the right information will have a place on the talker's mind that you are the expert and professional. Therefore, as a result of this image, thoughts will able to block the mistake that happened again by using personal talk in an impressive way.
In a nutshell, when all specific reasons and relevant examples are considered and evaluated, it can be concluded that when there is a incorrect delivery of talk, it is better to demonstrate it after the meeting is over and everyone has gone.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 472, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'talkers'' or 'talker's'?
Suggestion: talkers'; talker's
...u are wrong about that point breaks the talkers aspiration. The meeting may go ineffici...
^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 674, Rule ID: IN_A_X_MANNER[1]
Message: Consider replacing "In a private way" with adverb for "private"; eg, "in a hasty manner" with "hastily".
...he right thing about what is mentioned. In a private way of speech is a good choice. In additio...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 400, Rule ID: IN_A_X_MANNER[1]
Message: Consider replacing "in an impressive way" with adverb for "impressive"; eg, "in a hasty manner" with "hastily".
...t happened again by using personal talk in an impressive way. In a nutshell, when all specific reas...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 133, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'an' instead of 'a' if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g. 'an article', 'an hour'
Suggestion: an
... it can be concluded that when there is a incorrect delivery of talk, it is bette...
^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, furthermore, however, if, may, so, then, therefore, while, for example, in addition, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 15.1003584229 132% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 9.8082437276 82% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 13.8261648746 108% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 11.0286738351 91% => OK
Pronoun: 25.0 43.0788530466 58% => OK
Preposition: 39.0 52.1666666667 75% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 8.0752688172 136% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1559.0 1977.66487455 79% => OK
No of words: 323.0 407.700716846 79% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.826625387 4.8611393121 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.23936324884 4.48103885553 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.92109816027 2.67179642975 109% => OK
Unique words: 186.0 212.727598566 87% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.575851393189 0.524837075471 110% => OK
syllable_count: 493.2 618.680645161 80% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.51630824373 99% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 9.59856630824 63% => OK
Article: 1.0 3.08781362007 32% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 3.51792114695 114% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.86738351254 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.94265232975 121% => OK
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: 19.0 20.1344086022 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 66.2215010192 48.9658058833 135% => OK
Chars per sentence: 91.7058823529 100.406767564 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.0 20.6045352989 92% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.94117647059 5.45110844103 109% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.5376344086 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 11.8709677419 67% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 3.85842293907 156% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.88709677419 61% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.222780111275 0.236089414692 94% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0549163785062 0.076458572812 72% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.05428266901 0.0737576698707 74% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.119716379148 0.150856017488 79% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0431945059068 0.0645574589148 67% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.8 11.7677419355 92% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 60.65 58.1214874552 104% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.10430107527 144% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 10.1575268817 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.73 10.9000537634 98% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.34 8.01818996416 104% => OK
difficult_words: 77.0 86.8835125448 89% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 10.002688172 120% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.0537634409 95% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 10.247311828 107% => 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: 70.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 21.0 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.