It is so common that in a class or meeting or even in the significant talk in a conference the speaker makes a somewhat clear mistake and says an incorrect statement about a topic he wanted to describe it. So, we get stuck in a terrific situation that what we should do after such a clear mistake in a speech. So to choose the best and authentic way, we should think about all the possible facets of our reaction. In the other word, the speaker is like us he really can make many mistakes in his or her life. Therefore to reach an acceptable selection we should compare the different sides of our suggestion and through a fair comparison, we can opt our desire way. As far as I’m concerned, I believe the waiting until the class or meeting is over and the people are gone, and then talk to the speaker is a more satisfying way than others. The following paragraphs will aptly elucidate my perspective on the proposed question.
First of all, the speaker is a human so he can make mistakes. It is really conspicuous that the people when decide to talk in front of audiences, become anxious and maybe lose their concentration on the topic in some instances. For example, in my first talk in the University, I must have talked about one of the well-known Iranian contemporary poets who had written a plenty of dramatic poetries. Since I have been too worried about the reaction of the students, I lost my concentration and instead of his poetries I just talked about himself and his living style. And so I diverted the talk from its real direction to the unnecessary aspects of his life. Consequently, it was obvious that I knew him but my anxiousness caused me to forget the important notes.
Another significant reason is that the talking about others’ mistakes seems impolite and indeed people will scold the complainer. By the way of example, last week one of my friends, Ali, gave the mistake of one of the students during his presentation. The professor mentioned Ali that his behavior was not moral and he should be apologizing that student. In the result, the people do not accept individuals who complain about others in public and this belief can support my idea vigorously.
In brief, people usually do not prefer to inform others’ mistakes in public and know it as a discourteous behavior. So with the aforementioned reasons, I can adopt a firm position that waiting until the end of the speech and after that informing the possible mistake is the best way to behave in the explained situation.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 510, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Therefore,
... make many mistakes in his or her life. Therefore to reach an acceptable selection we sho...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 6, column 86, Rule ID: KNOW_NOW[4]
Message: Did you mean 'now'?
Suggestion: now
...orm others' mistakes in public and know it as a discourteous behavior. So with ...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, consequently, first, if, may, really, so, then, therefore, well, for example, in brief, talking about, by the way, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 15.1003584229 86% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 9.8082437276 122% => OK
Conjunction : 19.0 13.8261648746 137% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 11.0286738351 109% => OK
Pronoun: 55.0 43.0788530466 128% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 59.0 52.1666666667 113% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 8.0752688172 173% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2082.0 1977.66487455 105% => OK
No of words: 444.0 407.700716846 109% => OK
Chars per words: 4.68918918919 4.8611393121 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.5903493882 4.48103885553 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.78536501347 2.67179642975 104% => OK
Unique words: 232.0 212.727598566 109% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.522522522523 0.524837075471 100% => OK
syllable_count: 656.1 618.680645161 106% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.51630824373 99% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 9.59856630824 104% => OK
Article: 5.0 3.08781362007 162% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.51792114695 57% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.86738351254 107% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.94265232975 121% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 20.6003584229 92% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 20.1344086022 114% => OK
Sentence length SD: 40.3214919699 48.9658058833 82% => OK
Chars per sentence: 109.578947368 100.406767564 109% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.3684210526 20.6045352989 113% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.94736842105 5.45110844103 127% => 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 : 8.0 3.85842293907 207% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.88709677419 82% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0649236854944 0.236089414692 27% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0218910298734 0.076458572812 29% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0235799049696 0.0737576698707 32% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0441051526751 0.150856017488 29% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0298967166245 0.0645574589148 46% => 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: 12.3 11.7677419355 105% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 56.59 58.1214874552 97% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.10430107527 51% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 10.1575268817 109% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.22 10.9000537634 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.12 8.01818996416 101% => OK
difficult_words: 94.0 86.8835125448 108% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 10.002688172 130% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.0537634409 111% => 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.