The lecture and the reading provide two opposing views in regard to the consequences of university professors attending as guests on television programs. On the one hand, the reading states that it would benefit the public, the university, and the professor, personally, but on the other hand, the lecture provides contrasting opinions - by looking into this in another perspective.
First of all, the reading provides the benefits for the professor by appearing on the TV - appreciation, and enhancement of their importance. However, the professor in the lecture claims that these professors could lose their reputation among fellow professors by appearing on TV. Moreover, the portray themselves as if they are entertaining the public rather than educating them. So, these professors might face negative effects - not being invited to the meetings and not being granted money for research.
What's more, the narrator's notion that the students and university gains from the professors' appearance on the television are false, as per the lecture. Professors need to spend a lot of time for preparation of the content, rehearsing, commuting and getting ready to appear on the TV. If this time was spent by doing research and spending with the students, it could be beneficial according to the lecture. Hence, the opinion stated in the reading - this helps in improving the reputation of the university and the students - is countered in the lecture.
Finally, while the reading states that these programs could be beneficial to the viewers as they could get the sense of "real" knowledge, the professor counters this argument that TV programs do not want to share the entire, in-depth knowledge. They only discuss titles and overview of the content and this would also be given by a TV reporter with some practice. Therefore, in the professor's eyes, these programmes are not beneficial to the public as well.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 292, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
...rofessors by appearing on TV. Moreover, the portray themselves as if they are entertaining ...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 6, column 1, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: What's
...being granted money for research. Whats more, the narrators notion that the stu...
^^^^^
Line 6, column 17, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'narrators'' or 'narrator's'?
Suggestion: narrators'; narrator's
...ney for research. Whats more, the narrators notion that the students and university...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 6, column 82, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'professors'' or 'professor's'?
Suggestion: professors'; professor's
... students and university gains from the professors appearance on the television are false,...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, hence, however, if, look, moreover, so, therefore, well, while, first of all, in regard to, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 15.1003584229 66% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 9.8082437276 82% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 13.8261648746 80% => OK
Relative clauses : 5.0 11.0286738351 45% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 23.0 43.0788530466 53% => OK
Preposition: 40.0 52.1666666667 77% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 8.0752688172 99% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1616.0 1977.66487455 82% => OK
No of words: 306.0 407.700716846 75% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.28104575163 4.8611393121 109% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.18244613648 4.48103885553 93% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.92889864736 2.67179642975 110% => OK
Unique words: 158.0 212.727598566 74% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.516339869281 0.524837075471 98% => OK
syllable_count: 486.9 618.680645161 79% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.51630824373 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 9.59856630824 42% => OK
Article: 10.0 3.08781362007 324% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 3.0 3.51792114695 85% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.86738351254 161% => 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: 23.0 20.1344086022 114% => OK
Sentence length SD: 44.3792157761 48.9658058833 91% => OK
Chars per sentence: 124.307692308 100.406767564 124% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.5384615385 20.6045352989 114% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.4615384615 5.45110844103 192% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.5376344086 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 11.8709677419 59% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 3.85842293907 104% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.88709677419 41% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0358976277707 0.236089414692 15% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0145096557918 0.076458572812 19% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0231492680619 0.0737576698707 31% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0226105844468 0.150856017488 15% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.017525243606 0.0645574589148 27% => 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: 15.2 11.7677419355 129% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.13 58.1214874552 83% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.10430107527 144% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 10.1575268817 121% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.64 10.9000537634 125% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.75 8.01818996416 109% => OK
difficult_words: 77.0 86.8835125448 89% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 10.002688172 145% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.0537634409 111% => 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.