The article states that the communal online encyclopedias have several problems than traditional printed encyclopedias that make them less valuable and provides three reasons for support. However, the professor explains that communal online encyclopedias are more useful and valuable than traditional and refutes each of the author's reasons.
First, the reading claims that communal online encyclopedia has often lack academic credentials but there are no errors in traditional encyclopedia because it is written by trained experts. But the professor refutes this point by saying that traditional encyclopedia will never be perfect. She also states that a comprehension of traditional encyclopedia will never find any mistakes in offline but communal online encyclopedia can find the mistakes in online. So, the printed traditional encyclopedias remain decades with mistakes.
Second, the article claims that online encyclopedias are highly affected by hackers but it is not possible in traditional encyclopedias. However, the professor says that to protect from the hackers, two strategies are taken. According to her, first step is a suitable format that has no chance to change by any hackers and second step is all the malicious changes have to remove by the special editor.
Third, the reading says that the communal encyclopedias focus too frequently on trivial and popular topics but the traditional encyclopedias have a consider view about the topics. But, the professor opposes this point by explaining that actually, traditional encyclopedia has a limited space to consider which are important or not. So, its range is too small. We also learn that it has no issue about space in online encyclopedia, so, it has a great range and diversity. Thus, the professor disagrees and shows her valid reasons against the article.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 71, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Possible agreement error -- use past participle here: 'lacked'.
Suggestion: lacked
... communal online encyclopedia has often lack academic credentials but there are no e...
^^^^
Line 7, column 147, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
... but the traditional encyclopedias have a consider view about the topics. But, the profess...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, first, however, second, so, third, thus
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 15.1003584229 73% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 9.8082437276 31% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 13.8261648746 94% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 11.0286738351 118% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 43.0788530466 56% => OK
Preposition: 24.0 52.1666666667 46% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 0.0 8.0752688172 0% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1559.0 1977.66487455 79% => OK
No of words: 282.0 407.700716846 69% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.52836879433 4.8611393121 114% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.09790868904 4.48103885553 91% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.0131934124 2.67179642975 113% => OK
Unique words: 145.0 212.727598566 68% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.514184397163 0.524837075471 98% => OK
syllable_count: 494.1 618.680645161 80% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.51630824373 119% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 9.59856630824 42% => OK
Article: 9.0 3.08781362007 291% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 0.0 3.51792114695 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.86738351254 54% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.94265232975 20% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 20.6003584229 68% => 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: 20.0 20.1344086022 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 49.1742528449 48.9658058833 100% => OK
Chars per sentence: 111.357142857 100.406767564 111% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.1428571429 20.6045352989 98% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.28571428571 5.45110844103 79% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.5376344086 36% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 11.8709677419 59% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 3.85842293907 156% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.88709677419 20% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.258859559642 0.236089414692 110% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.100521866202 0.076458572812 131% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0708742142308 0.0737576698707 96% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.168461412394 0.150856017488 112% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0693737836881 0.0645574589148 107% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.7 11.7677419355 125% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 34.26 58.1214874552 59% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 8.8 6.10430107527 144% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.5 10.1575268817 133% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.79 10.9000537634 136% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.04 8.01818996416 100% => OK
difficult_words: 61.0 86.8835125448 70% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 10.002688172 130% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.0537634409 99% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 10.247311828 146% => 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: 60.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 18.0 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.