The reading passage talks about the critics’ opinion on replacing the traditional manual voting system by computerised methods in order to make the process more easy and reliable and also provides corresponding reasons. The professor in the audio passage, however refutes this claim by providing contradicting arguments to each of those reasons mentioned.
Firstly, the author in the reading passage mentions that bringing in computers would decrease the mistakes in vote casting, but the professor expresses huge doubt on this claim by pointing that this would give rise to more errors in case of people who don’t use computer on a regular basis since they would be unfamiliar with them. Additionally, this might even discourage them altogether to vote because of the fear of technology.
Secondly, professor directly contradicts the claim made in the reading passage that computerised voting would minimise the human errors in counting by stating that these “human” errors are also possible in the case of computers since they are programmed by humans, after all. Additionally, he points out that the errors in the case computers will be far more serious than those of human errors for instance, discrepancies in votes in terms of thousands, permanent removal of the votes from database, etc. Also, there would be no chance of re-count whatsoever in this case since we would have no physical evidence of votes.
Finally, the professor argues that the trustworthiness and reliance in computer systems in the fields of baking and communication is not attained in a day but took time and continuous improvements. However, such iterative process is not feasible or affordable in the case of elections since elections are far less frequent events happening once in two years nationally and not more than twice a year in local cities. So, we can’t just employ computers and place all our reliance on them. This way, the professor refutes the computers being reliable claim made by the reading passage.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, firstly, however, second, secondly, so, after all, for instance
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 10.4613686534 86% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 5.04856512141 178% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 7.30242825607 137% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 12.0772626932 58% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 24.0 22.412803532 107% => OK
Preposition: 54.0 30.3222958057 178% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1711.0 1373.03311258 125% => OK
No of words: 323.0 270.72406181 119% => OK
Chars per words: 5.29721362229 5.08290768461 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.23936324884 4.04702891845 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.93119374795 2.5805825403 114% => OK
Unique words: 177.0 145.348785872 122% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.547987616099 0.540411800872 101% => OK
syllable_count: 539.1 419.366225166 129% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 5.0 8.23620309051 61% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 11.0 13.0662251656 84% => 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: 29.0 21.2450331126 137% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 80.9391159815 49.2860985944 164% => OK
Chars per sentence: 155.545454545 110.228320801 141% => OK
Words per sentence: 29.3636363636 21.698381199 135% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.18181818182 7.06452816374 116% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 4.33554083885 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => 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: 0.15122817221 0.272083759551 56% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0566130415987 0.0996497079465 57% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0326516674278 0.0662205650399 49% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0923426936492 0.162205337803 57% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0205821482433 0.0443174109184 46% => 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: 18.2 13.3589403974 136% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 33.58 53.8541721854 62% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.8 11.0289183223 143% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.05 12.2367328918 115% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.47 8.42419426049 112% => OK
difficult_words: 90.0 63.6247240618 141% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 18.5 10.7273730684 172% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.6 10.498013245 130% => OK
text_standard: 19.0 11.2008830022 170% => 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.