If you walk into your local library these days, you may notice evidence of a disturbing trend. Libraries are stocking fewer books today than they have in the past due to a lack of respect for the history found in older books, a shift towards other media resources, and the banning of a large number of books.
The decline in books at libraries is most noticeable among the older volumes. In today's society, new things are more prized than old things. But older books should be treated with more respect than newer books. Even if old books are no longer accurate, libraries should keep them as valuable records of what was written during a particular time period. Lack of respect for the knowledge of the past that is contained in old books is causing them to be thrown away.
Adding to the problem is the fact that books are increasingly being replaced by entertainment media that have no business being in a library. Look at what can be found in many libraries today: CDs and DVDs, audio and video recording facilities, and even 3D printers and tools. These are fun things to spend time with, but a library is a place for books and these entertainment sections are taking up valuable resources that should be reserved for books.
The most upsetting reason for the declining number of books in libraries these days is that more and more books are being banned. Society has been becoming increasingly sensitive, and so the number of reasons why a book can be banned has also grown. This means that more books are being removed from shelves and fewer books are considered to be appropriate for purchase. The net effect is that the number of books at the library has shrunk and will likely continue to shrink.
The reading passage contends that there are fewer older books stocked in libraries due to lack of respect of the history it consists of, and presents several evidences that seem to uphold the claim. However, the lecture disapproves the assertion by claiming that closer examination needs to be performed. The points presented in the lecture will be elaborated in more detail below.
First of all, the lecture counterpoints the reading passage, which asserts that the today's society perceives new things being more valuable than old things, by commenting that librarians are extremely protective of their books and would have gone through a considerable amount of thought before throwing away the old books. Some old books have their covers rebounded to regain its popularity and other old books are even stored in a specific place. Moreover, librarians are now scanning the books to digital content, which indicates that the decline in the number of old books presented in the shelves does not necessarily mean that they have been thrown away.
Secondly, while the reading passage maintains that the books are being replaced by entertainment media that are irrelevant to the library, the lecture refutes this reason by metioning that library is not a place only for stocking books. Its purpose is to provide various types of information, and entertainment media can be perceived as visual content. This type of content will be helpful for libraries from overcoming the limitation of paperbooks and would allow them to provide information in a much more efficient way.
Last but not least, the reading passage claims that more and more books are being banned due to the increase in sensitivity in the society. However, the lecture disputes this assertion by explaining that while society has become sensitive, this can also be applied to the harmful effects banning of books can cause. The resistance in banning of the books also has gotten stronger than before, which indicates that society's increase in sensitivity is not the cause of more and more books being banned.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 85, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'todays'' or 'today's'?
Suggestion: todays'; today's
...reading passage, which asserts that the todays society perceives new things being more...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, moreover, second, secondly, so, while, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 10.4613686534 191% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 5.04856512141 139% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 7.30242825607 110% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 12.0772626932 132% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 22.412803532 107% => OK
Preposition: 44.0 30.3222958057 145% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 5.01324503311 180% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1736.0 1373.03311258 126% => OK
No of words: 337.0 270.72406181 124% => OK
Chars per words: 5.15133531157 5.08290768461 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.28457229495 4.04702891845 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.63112566196 2.5805825403 102% => OK
Unique words: 175.0 145.348785872 120% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.519287833828 0.540411800872 96% => OK
syllable_count: 540.0 419.366225166 129% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 28.0 21.2450331126 132% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 64.2885746718 49.2860985944 130% => OK
Chars per sentence: 144.666666667 110.228320801 131% => OK
Words per sentence: 28.0833333333 21.698381199 129% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.83333333333 7.06452816374 97% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 4.33554083885 185% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 4.45695364238 45% => More 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: 0.196038283929 0.272083759551 72% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0785122589116 0.0996497079465 79% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.070213484875 0.0662205650399 106% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.121347181767 0.162205337803 75% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0283478567949 0.0443174109184 64% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.9 13.3589403974 127% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 43.06 53.8541721854 80% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 11.0289183223 129% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.89 12.2367328918 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.24 8.42419426049 110% => OK
difficult_words: 90.0 63.6247240618 141% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 10.7273730684 131% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.2 10.498013245 126% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.2008830022 125% => 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.