The reading and the lecturer are both about the communal online encyclopedias. The auther of the reading believes that these encyclopedias have several problems that make them less valuable than traditional ones. However, the lecturer casts doubt on the claims made in the article.
First of all, the author claims that the communal online encyclopedia lack academic credentials, wich make them less interesting. This point is challenged by the lecturer who says that errors and mistakes can be found in both online and traditional encyclopedias. Furthermore, she points out that these errors can easily be corrected in the communal online encyclopedias which is not the case in traditional ones.
Secondly, the author states that the online encyclopedia original content can be easily hacked and changed wich leads to a misleading and corrupt informations. The lecturer rebuts this argument suggesting that these encyclopedia presents an unchangeable format. She elaborets on this by mentionaing that there are special editors who survey any inappropriate changes or melacious informations.
Finally, the author mentions that the communal encyclopedias focus on trivial and popular topics. The lecturer, on the other hand, states that there is no limited space for different informations as in traditional encyclopedias. She puts forth the idea that the online encyclopedias include a massive variety of topics, responding to the diversity of intrests.
In conclusion, the lecturer effectively casts doubt on all of the claims and theories presented in the reading.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 56, Rule ID: ALL_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'all the'.
Suggestion: all the
...the lecturer effectively casts doubt on all of the claims and theories presented in the re...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, furthermore, however, if, second, secondly, in conclusion, first of all, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 10.4613686534 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 5.04856512141 59% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 7.30242825607 110% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 12.0772626932 116% => OK
Pronoun: 22.0 22.412803532 98% => OK
Preposition: 23.0 30.3222958057 76% => OK
Nominalization: 1.0 5.01324503311 20% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1343.0 1373.03311258 98% => OK
No of words: 238.0 270.72406181 88% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.64285714286 5.08290768461 111% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.92775363542 4.04702891845 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.13587560966 2.5805825403 122% => OK
Unique words: 126.0 145.348785872 87% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.529411764706 0.540411800872 98% => OK
syllable_count: 417.6 419.366225166 100% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.55342163355 116% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 25.6519720224 49.2860985944 52% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 103.307692308 110.228320801 94% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.3076923077 21.698381199 84% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.53846153846 7.06452816374 121% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => 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: 0.271566440582 0.272083759551 100% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0990954558356 0.0996497079465 99% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.066606862875 0.0662205650399 101% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.140504600052 0.162205337803 87% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0877710933224 0.0443174109184 198% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.3 13.3589403974 107% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 36.28 53.8541721854 67% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 11.0289183223 115% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.43 12.2367328918 126% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.91 8.42419426049 106% => OK
difficult_words: 66.0 63.6247240618 104% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 10.7273730684 84% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 85.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 25.5 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.