Many consumers ignore commercial advertisements. In response, advertising companies have started using a new tactic, called “buzzing." The advertisers hire people, buzzers, who personally promote (buzz) products to people they know or meet. The key part is that the buzzers do not reveal that they are being paid to promote anything. They behave as though they were just spontaneously praising a product during normal conversation. Buzzing has generated a lot of controversy, and many critics would like to see it banned.
First, the critics complain that consumers should know whether a person praising a product is being paid to praise the product. Knowing this makes a big difference: we expect the truth from people who we believe do not have any motive for misleading us. But with buzzing what you hear is just paid advertising, which may well give a person incorrect information about the buzzed product.
Second, since buzzers pretend they are just private individuals, consumers listen to their endorsements less critically than they should. With advertisements in print or on TV, the consumer is on guard for questionable claims or empty descriptions such as "new and improved." But when consumers do not know they are being lobbied, they may accept claims they would otherwise be suspicious of. This may suit the manufacturers, but it could really harm consumers.
And worst of all is the harmful effect that buzzing is likely to have on social relationships. Once we become aware that people we meet socially may be buzzers with a hidden agenda, we will become less trustful of people in general. So buzzing will result in the spread of mistrust and the expectation of dishonesty.
The speaker, who is a buzzer, talks about the positive impacts of buzzers in different aspects which the reading criticised. The speaker states that all the author's reasons are misleading and the information is wrong.
First, the buzzers asserts that he is a student, who is hired by a cellphone company to advertise its product. He avers that this idea that buzzers have motivation to mislead people is not true and adds that they are consumers who believe srtrongly product which they propagagte is wonderful. Based on his assertment the companies select satisfied costomers and hire them to advertise. He mentions that they truly believe that this product which they advertise is good and there is not any motivation to mislead other people. Therefore, he rejects the writer's reason about misleading practice by buzzers.
Second, the lecturer rebuts the writer's opinion that people who listend to a buzzers accept them directly with no question. Conversely, he posits that people who he talk about cell-phone ask miriad diverse questions and if he cannot answer those questions people avoid buying that product. Wiht this explanaion he directly refutes the writer's critics that people accept the buzzers with close eyes.
Third, the student who talk for the class points out if product, the buzzers advertize, is not excellent, companies cannot hire them. In reality, when they introduce poeple with a high quality product, buzzers will be more open up and end up being more trustful. As he insists buzzers can increase the trustworthy in communities with correct information they provide people with about high-quality products. He flatly repudiates the writer's idea which this practice,buzzing, led up declining the trustworhty in societies.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...leading and the information is wrong. First, the buzzers asserts that he is a ...
^^^
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...about misleading practice by buzzers. Second, the lecturer rebuts the writers ...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 38, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'writers'' or 'writer's'?
Suggestion: writers'; writer's
... Second, the lecturer rebuts the writers opinion that people who listend to a bu...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 81, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[1]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'a buzzer' or simply 'buzzers'?
Suggestion: a buzzer; buzzers
...ters opinion that people who listend to a buzzers accept them directly with no question. ...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 171, Rule ID: HE_VERB_AGR[1]
Message: The pronoun 'he' must be used with a third-person verb: 'talks'.
Suggestion: talks
...onversely, he posits that people who he talk about cell-phone ask miriad diverse que...
^^^^
Line 4, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...le accept the buzzers with close eyes. Third, the student who talk for the clas...
^^^^^
Line 4, column 268, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “As” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...open up and end up being more trustful. As he insists buzzers can increase the tru...
^^
Line 4, column 438, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'writers'' or 'writer's'?
Suggestion: writers'; writer's
...lity products. He flatly repudiates the writers idea which this practice,buzzing, led u...
^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 470, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma
Suggestion: , buzzing
...tes the writers idea which this practice,buzzing, led up declining the trustworhty in so...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, conversely, first, if, second, so, therefore, third
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 10.4613686534 124% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 22.0 12.0772626932 182% => OK
Pronoun: 37.0 22.412803532 165% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 26.0 30.3222958057 86% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1472.0 1373.03311258 107% => OK
No of words: 278.0 270.72406181 103% => OK
Chars per words: 5.29496402878 5.08290768461 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.08329915638 4.04702891845 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.72163132258 2.5805825403 105% => OK
Unique words: 153.0 145.348785872 105% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.55035971223 0.540411800872 102% => OK
syllable_count: 437.4 419.366225166 104% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.23620309051 73% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 27.2389277262 49.2860985944 55% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 105.142857143 110.228320801 95% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.8571428571 21.698381199 92% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.0 7.06452816374 57% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 9.0 4.19205298013 215% => Less language errors wanted.
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 4.33554083885 185% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => OK
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: 0.216557807147 0.272083759551 80% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0828934929366 0.0996497079465 83% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0649484722201 0.0662205650399 98% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.128055362025 0.162205337803 79% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0655447398379 0.0443174109184 148% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.4 13.3589403974 100% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 53.8541721854 97% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 11.0289183223 97% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.4 12.2367328918 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.01 8.42419426049 107% => OK
difficult_words: 78.0 63.6247240618 123% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 85.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 25.5 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.