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.
Making mistakes is one of the inseparable parts of human beings. In this regard, making a mistake during the speech is common. Some people believe that we must correct the speaker as soon as possible; on the other hand, others prefer to announce the speaker's mistake after the meeting. Besides these groups of people, some believe that telling nothing to the speaker is the best choice. I firmly agree with the first group because correcting the lecturer's mistakes right away has many advantages for both speaker and audience.
At first, correcting the speaker during the speech helps him stay in the right way and continue the rest of the speech with accurate information. In fact, when a person says something wrong, he/she actually diverts the speech stream. So if we let him/her continue, the speaker perpetrates more mistakes during the lecture. On the other hand, if we correct the mistake, we prevent the next mistake and direct the speech in the right way. Therefore, making the lecturer aware of his/her mistake helps him have a perfect speech, and the lecturer may even appreciate it.
In addition, modifying the mistakes helps the audiences not carrying the wrong information until the end of the speech. It is crystal clear that if the audiences learn something wrong from a speaker, they follow the remaining data in the wrong way. As a personal experience, I was in one of my important college classes, and the teacher said something wrong. For the rest of the class, my mind was struggling with false information, which didn't match with other speech content, and unfortunately, I missed the whole lecture.
As refining the lecturer's mistakes right away benefits both speaker and audience, it's like killing two birds by one stone. With this in mind, why not doing it when we can help others benefit from the talk?
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-07-14 | Zmx_6 | 76 | view |
| 2023-07-12 | Zmx_6 | 80 | view |
| 2023-06-28 | Vivian Chang | 70 | view |
| 2023-03-22 | sonyeoso | 76 | view |
| 2023-02-20 | m.ghoroobi | 76 | view |
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement The opinions of celebrities such as famous entertainers and athletes are more important to younger people than they are to older people Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer 70
- TPO43 integrated 70
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement It is important to know about events happening around the world even if it is unlikely that they will affect your daily life Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer 71
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement In the past young people depended too much on their parents to make decisions for them today young people are better able to make decisions about their own lives Use specific reasons and examples to su 66
- Do you agree or disagree with this following statement Technology has made children less creative than they were in the past 76
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 440, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: didn't
...truggling with false information, which didnt match with other speech content, and un...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, besides, first, if, may, so, therefore, in addition, in fact, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 6.0 15.1003584229 40% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 9.8082437276 31% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 13.8261648746 51% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 6.0 11.0286738351 54% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 29.0 43.0788530466 67% => OK
Preposition: 36.0 52.1666666667 69% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 8.0752688172 87% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1528.0 1977.66487455 77% => OK
No of words: 309.0 407.700716846 76% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.94498381877 4.8611393121 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.1926597562 4.48103885553 94% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.48769028782 2.67179642975 93% => OK
Unique words: 168.0 212.727598566 79% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.543689320388 0.524837075471 104% => OK
syllable_count: 451.8 618.680645161 73% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.51630824373 99% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 9.59856630824 94% => OK
Article: 1.0 3.08781362007 32% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 3.51792114695 114% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.86738351254 161% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 4.94265232975 162% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 20.6003584229 78% => 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: 30.1858177585 48.9658058833 62% => OK
Chars per sentence: 95.5 100.406767564 95% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.3125 20.6045352989 94% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.5625 5.45110844103 102% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.5376344086 18% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 11.8709677419 59% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 3.85842293907 233% => 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: 0.126084788785 0.236089414692 53% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0460770206168 0.076458572812 60% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0195257235322 0.0737576698707 26% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0796676329639 0.150856017488 53% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.00842216973919 0.0645574589148 13% => 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: 11.5 11.7677419355 98% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 60.65 58.1214874552 104% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.10430107527 51% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 10.1575268817 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.37 10.9000537634 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.59 8.01818996416 95% => OK
difficult_words: 59.0 86.8835125448 68% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 10.002688172 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.0537634409 95% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 10.247311828 78% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
We are expecting: No. of Words: 350 while No. of Different Words: 200
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.