The reading and the listening are both about a new type of advertising called buzzing. The author believes that buzzing is not a good form of advertising and it should be banned from the marketing world. However, the lecturer thinks this is not true; indeed alternate is correct that buzzing is a perfect way to promote products and it's trustworthy process.
First of all, the writer claims that most of the time buzzer provide incorrect information about the product to promote it. So it is not good for the consumer and should apply a restriction on them. The speaker, on the other hand, avers that the buzzers provide correct information to the people. Moreover, he says that the writer might not know the actual process of this marketing. He further informs that the company only select as a buzzer a regular user familiar with this product. Therefore, the buzzer typically shares their own experiences with the consumer of this product.
Secondly, the author tries to prove that consumers are less conscious during the buzzing advertising than during the traditional publicity; as a result, they might be affected by this type of product promoting. The lecturer disputes this idea. He clarifies his opinion by saying that most of the people like to know about the product more when they get chances, and that is possible only by this buzzing process. He also indicates that as a part-time buzzer, he had to describe elaborately to the consumer unless the consumer would not buy the product if they did not understand thoroughly it.
Finally, the author posits that due to this advertising, the buzzer might have to face severe soil interaction problem. He establishes this point by saying that since people know that he is a buzzer, they will be suspicious of him in all situation. The audio challenges this point. And the lecturer contends that this advertising is increasing the social bonding. He says that since his promoting cell phones are well, many new consumers like him and believe him. Therefore, this advertising is a fantastic method for promoting the product.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, first, however, if, moreover, second, secondly, so, therefore, well, as a result, first of all, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 10.4613686534 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 5.04856512141 139% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 12.0772626932 132% => OK
Pronoun: 51.0 22.412803532 228% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 37.0 30.3222958057 122% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1739.0 1373.03311258 127% => OK
No of words: 349.0 270.72406181 129% => OK
Chars per words: 4.98280802292 5.08290768461 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.32221490584 4.04702891845 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.64253917204 2.5805825403 102% => OK
Unique words: 172.0 145.348785872 118% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.492836676218 0.540411800872 91% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 525.6 419.366225166 125% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 3.25607064018 307% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => 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: 19.0 13.0662251656 145% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 44.6375368417 49.2860985944 91% => OK
Chars per sentence: 91.5263157895 110.228320801 83% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.3684210526 21.698381199 85% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.73684210526 7.06452816374 95% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 4.33554083885 208% => Less positive sentences wanted.
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: 0.364867065861 0.272083759551 134% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.110317143973 0.0996497079465 111% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0611406077985 0.0662205650399 92% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.230525734594 0.162205337803 142% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0536523294566 0.0443174109184 121% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.2 13.3589403974 84% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 61.67 53.8541721854 115% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 11.0289183223 83% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.6 12.2367328918 95% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.1 8.42419426049 96% => OK
difficult_words: 79.0 63.6247240618 124% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
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.