Critics say that current voting systems used in the United States are inefficient and often lead to the inaccurate counting of votes. Miscounts can be especially damaging if an election is closely contested. Those critics would like the traditional systems to be replaced with far more efficient and trustworthy computerized voting systems. In traditional voting, one major source of inaccuracy is that people accidentally vote for the wrong candidate. Voters usually have to find the name of their candidate on a large sheet of paper containing many names—the ballot—and make a small mark next to that name. People with poor eyesight can easily mark the wrong name. The computerized voting machines have an easy-to-use touch-screen technology: to cast a vote, a voter needs only to touch the candidate’s name on the screen to record a vote for that candidate; voters can even have the computer magnify the name for easier viewing. Another major problem with old voting systems is that they rely heavily on people to count the votes. Officials must often count up the votes one by one, going through every ballot and recording the vote. Since they have to deal with thousands of ballots, it is almost inevitable that they will make mistakes. If an error is detected, a long and expensive recount has to take place. In contrast, computerized systems remove the possibility of human error, since all the vote counting is done quickly and automatically by the computers. Finally some people say it is too risky to implement complicated voting technology nationwide. But without giving it a thought, governments and individuals alike trust other complex computer technology every day to be perfectly accurate in banking transactions as well as in the communication of highly sensitive information.
there has been a ton of debate as to replace traditional voting machine by computerized voting machine or not. More specifically, in regards to passages, the author puts forth the idea that new computersized voting machines can lead to efficient election system. In the listening, the speaker is quick to point out there are some serious flaws in writer's claims. In fact, the professor believes that existing voting machines can not replaced by computersized voting machine and addresses, in detail, trouble with the each point made in reading text.
First and foremost, the author states that due to close proximity in candidate names on ballet paper, some people with cast wrong votes. this problem can be avoided in touch based computerized voting machine. some professionals in the field, however, stands in firm opposition to this claim. In the lecture, for example, the speaker addresses this point and states that not all people are familiar with computor, thus, introduction of these voting machines leads to no votes at all by these people.
A group of scholars, represented by author believe that error in counting by human can cost a lot in closely contensted elction and can be avoided by using computersied voting amchines. In fact, though, not all experts believe this is accurate. The speaker states that, since computers are programmed by human, human error can be eliminated either way. Even error in programme to count votes can wipe thousands of votes.
Finally, the author wraps this argument by positing that people are well aware complex computing system such as banking and communication. computersized voting machine will not be something new. Not surprisingly, the lecturer takes an issue with this claim by contending that these systems are refined due to daily uses but election occurs less frequently and can not be refined in short duration.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 1, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: There
there has been a ton of debate as to replace ...
^^^^^
Line 1, column 131, Rule ID: IN_REGARD_TO[1]
Message: Use simply 'regarding' or 'with regard to'.
Suggestion: regarding; with regard to
...ting machine or not. More specifically, in regards to passages, the author puts forth the ide...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 434, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[3]
Message: The verb 'can' requires base form of the verb: 'replace'
Suggestion: replace
...s that existing voting machines can not replaced by computersized voting machine and add...
^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 51, Rule ID: CLOSE_SCRUTINY[1]
Message: Use simply 'proximity'.
Suggestion: proximity
...foremost, the author states that due to close proximity in candidate names on ballet paper, som...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 138, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: This
...per, some people with cast wrong votes. this problem can be avoided in touch based c...
^^^^
Line 7, column 210, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Some
...ouch based computerized voting machine. some professionals in the field, however, st...
^^^^
Line 19, column 140, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Computersized
...stem such as banking and communication. computersized voting machine will not be something ne...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, however, if, so, thus, well, as to, for example, in fact, in short, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 10.4613686534 124% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 5.04856512141 178% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 7.30242825607 110% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 12.0772626932 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 17.0 22.412803532 76% => OK
Preposition: 46.0 30.3222958057 152% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 5.01324503311 160% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1591.0 1373.03311258 116% => OK
No of words: 304.0 270.72406181 112% => OK
Chars per words: 5.23355263158 5.08290768461 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.17559525986 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.73358231981 2.5805825403 106% => OK
Unique words: 170.0 145.348785872 117% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.559210526316 0.540411800872 103% => OK
syllable_count: 490.5 419.366225166 117% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 3.25607064018 31% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 2.5761589404 272% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 51.3080457195 49.2860985944 104% => OK
Chars per sentence: 106.066666667 110.228320801 96% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.2666666667 21.698381199 93% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.4 7.06452816374 91% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 7.0 4.19205298013 167% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 4.33554083885 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 4.45695364238 202% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.27373068433 94% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.21800389262 0.272083759551 80% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0752077693727 0.0996497079465 75% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0497546154798 0.0662205650399 75% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.134897642967 0.162205337803 83% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0221925029583 0.0443174109184 50% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.3 13.3589403974 100% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 53.8541721854 95% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 11.0289183223 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.05 12.2367328918 107% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.99 8.42419426049 107% => OK
difficult_words: 84.0 63.6247240618 132% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.