intesvhulk,m h
The professor disagrees with the notion in the text about three criticisms regarding online encyclopedias. Actually, the reading believes that tradition encyclopedias are better in comparison with online encyclopedia. The professor brings several reasons to support her idea.
First, she mentions that we do not have any errors on online encyclopedias and online format is better because we are able to correct the mistakes but in printed format we are not able to edit the faults therefore the mistakes will remain in the encyclopedia for many decades. However, the reading specifies that the information on online encyclopedias is not correct because the author of the text thinks that online format is created by unskillful persons.
Second, the lecturer specifies that creators of the online format use two methods in order to no one can hack the encyclopedias. As a matter of fact, they use special format thus hackers cannot change the materials in the encyclopedias. As a result, the information would be reliable. In addition, creators are able to monitor the all changes in online encyclopedias so if they see irrelevant information they will omit them certainly. In contrast, the article states that hackers can alter the information in the encyclopedias readily hence the material on online format will not be correct.
Finally, the speaker hints that traditional encyclopedias do not have enough space. That is why the creators of tradition format decide to just compile important information. Thereby the tradition encyclopedias do not have enough information. Besides, the professor believes that on online version we have a lot of space so we can face with wide variety of academic subjects on online encyclopedia. On the other hand, according to the reading, online encyclopedias do not have significant topics therefore they would not be practical especially for person who want to do research.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, besides, but, finally, first, hence, however, if, regarding, second, so, therefore, thus, in addition, in contrast, as a matter of fact, as a result, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 10.4613686534 105% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 5.04856512141 178% => OK
Conjunction : 2.0 7.30242825607 27% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 22.412803532 94% => OK
Preposition: 36.0 30.3222958057 119% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 5.01324503311 199% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1620.0 1373.03311258 118% => OK
No of words: 303.0 270.72406181 112% => OK
Chars per words: 5.34653465347 5.08290768461 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.17215713816 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.0591905393 2.5805825403 119% => OK
Unique words: 147.0 145.348785872 101% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.485148514851 0.540411800872 90% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 523.8 419.366225166 125% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.116997792494 0% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 57.4542910108 49.2860985944 117% => OK
Chars per sentence: 108.0 110.228320801 98% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.2 21.698381199 93% => OK
Discourse Markers: 11.8 7.06452816374 167% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 4.33554083885 161% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 4.45695364238 67% => 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: 0.0 0.272083759551 0% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0 0.0996497079465 0% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0662205650399 0% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0 0.162205337803 0% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0443174109184 0% => 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: 13.9 13.3589403974 104% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 42.72 53.8541721854 79% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 11.0289183223 112% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.75 12.2367328918 112% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.28 8.42419426049 98% => OK
difficult_words: 70.0 63.6247240618 110% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 10.7273730684 107% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.2008830022 125% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 3.33333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.