TPO 46
The reading and the lecturer are both about that patients' information has been recorded and stored electronically instead of on paper forms. The author of the reading feels that this activity have enormous advantages over traditional paper-based. The lecturer is challenged the claim made by the author. He says that these advantages are uncertain.
To begin with, the reading claims that electronic records can decrease costs by saving money on storing and transferring medical records. In the article, it is said that paper records need significant amount of storage space, and doctors can easily access to the patients' data. This specific argument is challenged by the lecturer. He argues that doctors do not throw out their notes, and prescriptions from their patients. Additionally, she says they keep information for the emergency situation.
Secondly, the author states that electronic medical record are important to reducing the chances of medical errors. It is said that illegible handwriting, insufficient transcription of data, and nonstandard organization of paper records have cause so many errors in many cases which was related to the patients' health. The ;lecturer, however, rebuts on this by mentioning that doctors take note from their patients, after that they give it to another person to put it in especial electronic file which is related to that patient. By this way doctors prevent themselves from any errors.
Finally, the author posits that these electronic medical records are useful for medical research. The reading states that it is not possible to give all of information about the patients by the paper records. In contrast, the lecturer's position is that using patients' data is difficult, and it is relevant to privacy law in the United States of America. She says that researchers need the allowance of patient. For example they maybe do not like to use their information for the specific research.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 50, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'patients'' or 'patient's'?
Suggestion: patients'; patient's
...ng and the lecturer are both about that patients information has been recorded and store...
^^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 248, 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.
...dvantages over traditional paper-based. The lecturer is challenged the claim made b...
^^^
Line 3, column 264, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'patients'' or 'patient's'?
Suggestion: patients'; patient's
...e, and doctors can easily access to the patients data. This specific argument is challen...
^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 303, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'patients'' or 'patient's'?
Suggestion: patients'; patient's
... in many cases which was related to the patients health. The ;lecturer, however, rebuts ...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, for example, in contrast, in many cases, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 15.1003584229 99% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 9.8082437276 41% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 13.8261648746 51% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 17.0 11.0286738351 154% => OK
Pronoun: 39.0 43.0788530466 91% => OK
Preposition: 43.0 52.1666666667 82% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 8.0752688172 124% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1635.0 1977.66487455 83% => OK
No of words: 308.0 407.700716846 76% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.30844155844 4.8611393121 109% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.18926351222 4.48103885553 93% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.82649404056 2.67179642975 106% => OK
Unique words: 153.0 212.727598566 72% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.496753246753 0.524837075471 95% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 504.9 618.680645161 82% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.51630824373 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 9.59856630824 73% => OK
Article: 8.0 3.08781362007 259% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 1.0 3.51792114695 28% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.86738351254 214% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 5.0 4.94265232975 101% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 20.6003584229 87% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 20.1344086022 84% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 47.6256298361 48.9658058833 97% => OK
Chars per sentence: 90.8333333333 100.406767564 90% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.1111111111 20.6045352989 83% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.0 5.45110844103 110% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.5376344086 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 11.8709677419 51% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 3.85842293907 181% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.88709677419 102% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0 0.236089414692 0% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0 0.076458572812 0% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0737576698707 0% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0 0.150856017488 0% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0645574589148 0% => 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: 12.1 11.7677419355 103% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 54.22 58.1214874552 93% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.10430107527 144% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 10.1575268817 97% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.22 10.9000537634 121% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.48 8.01818996416 106% => OK
difficult_words: 78.0 86.8835125448 90% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 10.002688172 90% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.0537634409 88% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.247311828 88% => 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.