communal online encyclopedias
In this set of materials, the reading passage explains why the traditional encyclopedias are more reliable and useful than online encyclopedias, and offers three reasons to support it. In the lecture, the professor cast doubt on each of these arguments.
First, the reading explains that printed encyclopedias are written by professionals, instead communal encyclopedias are not. In other words, writers in online encyclopedias are not supported by any credentials and they could be inaccurate. Some professionals in the same area, however, stand in firm opposition to this claim. The lecturer states that it is a totally unfair statement because printed encyclopedias have errors as well. Actually, in the online encyclopedias, it is faster and easier to fix mistakes while in printed encyclopedias, it could take years.
Next, the second argument that the reading passage offers is that malicious people have easy access to corrupt online encyclopedias. Of course, hacking is one of the main concerns where the builders of the online encyclopedias are focused. Furthermore, they have two practices in order to control hackers. First, they created a special digital format to avoid modification in the information. Second, they have experts all the time checking the information, and if they find some difference between the original and the modified they will fix it.
Finally, the author of the reading brings his arguments to a close by suggesting that traditional encyclopedias provide relevant information controlled by professionals. Not surprisingly, the lecturer takes issue with this claim by contending that printed encyclopedias have limited space, and they can not include much information and sometimes they do not reflect the people’s interests. Athought, at communal encyclopedias there is no limit to include as many academic articles that people want. Even more, this feature of the online encyclopedias is may be the most important characteristic because it reflects what people want.
In conclusion, both the writer and the professor hold conflicting views about which of both encyclopedias are more reliable for the community. It is clear that they will have trouble finding common grounds in this issue.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 391, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...it is a totally unfair statement because printed encyclopedias have errors as wel...
^^
Line 5, column 124, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... of both encyclopedias are more reliable for the community. It is clear that they...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, finally, first, furthermore, however, if, may, second, so, well, while, in conclusion, of course, in other words
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 10.4613686534 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 31.0 22.412803532 138% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 38.0 30.3222958057 125% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 5.01324503311 180% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1891.0 1373.03311258 138% => OK
No of words: 343.0 270.72406181 127% => OK
Chars per words: 5.51311953353 5.08290768461 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.30351707066 4.04702891845 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.17224746165 2.5805825403 123% => OK
Unique words: 189.0 145.348785872 130% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.551020408163 0.540411800872 102% => OK
syllable_count: 592.2 419.366225166 141% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 3.25607064018 215% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 3.0 1.51434878587 198% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 2.5761589404 272% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 13.0662251656 138% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 40.203648259 49.2860985944 82% => OK
Chars per sentence: 105.055555556 110.228320801 95% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.0555555556 21.698381199 88% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.77777777778 7.06452816374 96% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 4.33554083885 185% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.27373068433 70% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.336965862493 0.272083759551 124% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.102293060099 0.0996497079465 103% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0977073225538 0.0662205650399 148% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.183397549424 0.162205337803 113% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.102519586853 0.0443174109184 231% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.1 13.3589403974 106% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 43.73 53.8541721854 81% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 11.0289183223 108% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.68 12.2367328918 120% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.72 8.42419426049 104% => OK
difficult_words: 90.0 63.6247240618 141% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 10.7273730684 84% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
Rates: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.0 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.