Based on the reading material, it is stated that communal online encyclopedias have some viable problems which make them much less valuable than printted versions. However, the lecturer finds this idea bereft of sufficient reasoning and presents some ideas to the contrary.
Initially, the author argued that contributors to an online encyclopedia are bereft of academic credential, which leads to the inaccuracy in their contributions. That being said, the lecturer repudiated this idea by clarifying that if an error occurs in a printted version, it may exist for a long time and cannot be corrected. On the contrary, in a same case, users get to correct mistakes after they find them in an online version.
Another point mentioned by the author was that in an online version, information are subject to be fabricate, delete and corrupt by hackers. However, the lecturer rejected this one too by stating that there are two strategies to confront this problem. The first strategy is to put the crucial facts in a reading-only format to prevent any changes on them. The second one is to hire some editors who check the accuracy of the materials all the time.
The final point advanced in the reading passage was that communal online encyclopedias may include contents that are not very important. Yet again, the lecturer casted doubt on this idea. She said that in printed versions, there is a limited space to write information and writers have to decide what is important and what is not. That being said, in online versions there is no restrictions for writers to write, thus these versions can include a wide range of information, which is a great advantage of communal online encyclopedias.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 1, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...ccuracy of the materials all the time. The final point advanced in the reading pas...
^^^
Line 4, column 367, Rule ID: THERE_S_MANY[4]
Message: Did you mean 'there are no restrictions'?
Suggestion: there are no restrictions
...ot. That being said, in online versions there is no restrictions for writers to write, thus these versio...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, if, may, second, so, thus, as to, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 15.1003584229 119% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 9.8082437276 41% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 13.8261648746 43% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 14.0 11.0286738351 127% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 43.0788530466 56% => OK
Preposition: 35.0 52.1666666667 67% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 8.0752688172 37% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1419.0 1977.66487455 72% => OK
No of words: 282.0 407.700716846 69% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.03191489362 4.8611393121 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.09790868904 4.48103885553 91% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.78610817678 2.67179642975 104% => OK
Unique words: 159.0 212.727598566 75% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.563829787234 0.524837075471 107% => OK
syllable_count: 451.8 618.680645161 73% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.51630824373 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 9.59856630824 52% => OK
Article: 8.0 3.08781362007 259% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 0.0 3.51792114695 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.86738351254 54% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.94265232975 61% => 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: 21.0 20.1344086022 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 38.2927063675 48.9658058833 78% => OK
Chars per sentence: 109.153846154 100.406767564 109% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.6923076923 20.6045352989 105% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.38461538462 5.45110844103 99% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.5376344086 36% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 11.8709677419 34% => More positive sentences wanted.
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: 0.0270953272308 0.236089414692 11% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0100646438587 0.076458572812 13% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0110013479009 0.0737576698707 15% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0182109820978 0.150856017488 12% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0129572232847 0.0645574589148 20% => 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: 13.1 11.7677419355 111% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 58.1214874552 86% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.10430107527 144% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 10.1575268817 113% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.89 10.9000537634 109% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.93 8.01818996416 111% => OK
difficult_words: 76.0 86.8835125448 87% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 10.002688172 115% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.0537634409 103% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 10.247311828 117% => 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.
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.