Giving expert commentary by professors is of great benefit to the professors themselves as well as to their universities and the general public.
The text and the lecture offer two opposing views about whether professors' participation in TVs presenting expert commentaries is beneficial or not. While the reading passage lists advantages for such an attendance, the professor repudiates all the alluded pros, and elucidates that it imposes harms as well.
First, the article posits that a professor who takes part in TV program has a wider audience. On the contrary, the lecturer refutes this claim, and states that such a professor's professional fellows would consider him either as an inadvertent researcher, or as one who prefers entertainment than serious scientific affairs. Thus, a professor who regularly addresses TV watchers, probably, might not been invited to crucial scientific conferences. In addition, he may not been paid attention by donators to receive grants for doing researches. therefore, a professor should not benefit attending TV programs.
Next, the author claims that universities enjoy an improved reputation through their faculty members' participation in TV shows. In contrast, the professor opposes this assertion by explaining that should a faculty member attend TV programs, he will waste a lot of time for issues such as attending the TV itself, transportation, rehearsing what he wants to state, making up to appear adequately in TV. All these activities take a lot of time which unless would be spent to do research and guide students. Hence, faculty members' attendance on TVs has adverse effects for universities.
Finally, the passage declares that professors attendance in televisions elevates the level of public knowledge. On the other hand, the lecturer rejects this statement, and argues that television viewers do not desire a deep and thorough scientific discussion from a professor. A typical after dinner television watcher only pays attention to the professor's title rather than his intellectual achievements. For example, elucidating the background of a problem, or historical aspects of a certain movie are not pertinent to a deep knowledge of a professor.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...cidates that it imposes harms as well. First, the article posits that a profess...
^^^^
Line 2, column 169, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[1]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'a professor' or simply 'professors'?
Suggestion: a professor; professors
...efutes this claim, and states that such a professors professional fellows would consider him...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 547, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Therefore
...to receive grants for doing researches. therefore, a professor should not benefit attendi...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...uld not benefit attending TV programs. Next, the author claims that universitie...
^^^
Line 4, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... has adverse effects for universities. Finally, the passage declares that profe...
^^^
Line 4, column 39, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'professors'' or 'professor's'?
Suggestion: professors'; professor's
... Finally, the passage declares that professors attendance in televisions elevates the ...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, first, hence, if, may, so, therefore, thus, well, while, for example, in addition, in contrast, such as, on the contrary, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 5.0 10.4613686534 48% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 5.04856512141 139% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 19.0 22.412803532 85% => OK
Preposition: 30.0 30.3222958057 99% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 5.01324503311 259% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1744.0 1373.03311258 127% => OK
No of words: 318.0 270.72406181 117% => OK
Chars per words: 5.48427672956 5.08290768461 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.22286093782 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.1288470644 2.5805825403 121% => OK
Unique words: 198.0 145.348785872 136% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.622641509434 0.540411800872 115% => OK
syllable_count: 530.1 419.366225166 126% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 5.0 1.51434878587 330% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 21.2450331126 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 53.677390233 49.2860985944 109% => OK
Chars per sentence: 116.266666667 110.228320801 105% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.2 21.698381199 98% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.86666666667 7.06452816374 140% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 4.19205298013 143% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.27373068433 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.220853944917 0.272083759551 81% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0754305770447 0.0996497079465 76% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0516523476219 0.0662205650399 78% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.133260503182 0.162205337803 82% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0476224446179 0.0443174109184 107% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.0 13.3589403974 112% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.7 53.8541721854 77% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 11.0289183223 115% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.5 12.2367328918 118% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.54 8.42419426049 113% => OK
difficult_words: 98.0 63.6247240618 154% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.0 10.7273730684 140% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.498013245 99% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.2008830022 134% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 90.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 27.0 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.