The reading and the lecture are both about the voting system in the United States. Whereas the author of the reading passage suggests that the traditional system of voting must be replaced by a computerized system, the lecturer suggests that the current system is fine and the computerized system might create more problems. The lecturer casts doubt on the main points by providing 2/3 points.
First of all, according to the reading in the traditional voting system, one source for inaccuracy is that people accidentally vote for the wrong candidate. However, the lecturer disputes this point. He says that computer can also lead to inconsistency. He argues that people who do not know how to use the computer can naturally select the wrong candidate - as they are not accustomed to the use of the computer. Furthermore, he mentions that these voters can be discouraged by the fear of technology.
Secondly, the reading suggests that the traditional voting system relies too much on people to count the number of votes. Hence, there is a factor of human error involved in the counting process which incurs a vote recount which again is expensive. Nevertheless, the lecturer refutes this argument. He argues that as the computer is made by humans, there is a factor of human error involved in the computerized system too. Moreover, he feels that many computer voting systems do not have a physical record of votes. So if an error is involved, there is no fallback and vote recounting is impossible.
In general, although the reading and the lecture are both about the voting system, the two points made in the reading are effectively challenged by the lecturer.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 166, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...y vote for the wrong candidate. However, the lecturer disputes this point. He say...
^^
Line 5, column 448, Rule ID: MANY_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun computer seems to be countable; consider using: 'many computers'.
Suggestion: many computers
...zed system too. Moreover, he feels that many computer voting systems do not have a physical r...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 11, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...vely challenged by the lecturer.
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, furthermore, hence, however, if, moreover, nevertheless, second, secondly, so, whereas, in general, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 10.4613686534 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 7.30242825607 55% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 18.0 22.412803532 80% => OK
Preposition: 29.0 30.3222958057 96% => 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: 1404.0 1373.03311258 102% => OK
No of words: 278.0 270.72406181 103% => OK
Chars per words: 5.05035971223 5.08290768461 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.08329915638 4.04702891845 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.74625424166 2.5805825403 106% => OK
Unique words: 135.0 145.348785872 93% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.485611510791 0.540411800872 90% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 439.2 419.366225166 105% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 51.8763487107 49.2860985944 105% => OK
Chars per sentence: 93.6 110.228320801 85% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.5333333333 21.698381199 85% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.33333333333 7.06452816374 118% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 4.45695364238 224% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.27373068433 47% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.240900279786 0.272083759551 89% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0811296639048 0.0996497079465 81% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0599924249491 0.0662205650399 91% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.144477610312 0.162205337803 89% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0479284011718 0.0443174109184 108% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.6 13.3589403974 87% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 53.8541721854 99% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 11.0289183223 93% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.01 12.2367328918 98% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.99 8.42419426049 95% => OK
difficult_words: 61.0 63.6247240618 96% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 10.7273730684 79% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 73.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.0 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.