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 man in the conversation denies the claim made in the passage that buzzing has generated a lot of controversy, and it should be banned. Instead, the man says that buzzing is a honest work.
First of all, the passage claims that buzzers usually do not tell the truth, since they are paid by the company to be buzzers. However, the man in the conversation refutes the passage by arguing that buzzers are people who actually use the product, and companies hire these users to be their buzzers. Thus, what these buzzers say are truth, because they are users that have had good experience for the product.
Secondly, the passage states that buzzers pretend they are just private individuals, so consumers would listen to their endorsements less critically. Nevertheless, the man casts doubt on the passage by saying that consumers do not simply trust what buzzers said, rather, those people usually ask a lot of questions about the product.
Finally, the passage mentions that buzzing would cause harmful effect on social. Because once we become aware that people we meet socially may be buzzers with other motivation, we will become less trust of people in general. Notwithstanding, the man contends that a company would not choose people who do not have good user experience to be buzzers. Hence, buzzing can build trustful relationship in society, since buzzers are sharing real experience and promoting good products to others.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 178, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'an' instead of 'a' if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g. 'an article', 'an hour'
Suggestion: an
.... Instead, the man says that buzzing is a honest work. First of all, the passa...
^
Line 7, column 292, Rule ID: AFFORD_VB[1]
Message: This verb is used with the infinitive: 'to people'
Suggestion: to people
...ontends that a company would not choose people who do not have good user experience to...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, finally, first, hence, however, may, nevertheless, second, secondly, so, thus, in general, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 10.4613686534 115% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 5.04856512141 139% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 7.30242825607 41% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 22.0 22.412803532 98% => OK
Preposition: 23.0 30.3222958057 76% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1202.0 1373.03311258 88% => OK
No of words: 237.0 270.72406181 88% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.07172995781 5.08290768461 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.92362132708 4.04702891845 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.62645942132 2.5805825403 102% => OK
Unique words: 125.0 145.348785872 86% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.527426160338 0.540411800872 98% => OK
syllable_count: 361.8 419.366225166 86% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 1.25165562914 320% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 11.0 13.0662251656 84% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 21.0 21.2450331126 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 36.1715380553 49.2860985944 73% => OK
Chars per sentence: 109.272727273 110.228320801 99% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.5454545455 21.698381199 99% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.2727272727 7.06452816374 145% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.27373068433 23% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.218854276867 0.272083759551 80% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0890784489243 0.0996497079465 89% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0342390695337 0.0662205650399 52% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.13107538927 0.162205337803 81% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0436568223051 0.0443174109184 99% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.2 13.3589403974 99% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 58.62 53.8541721854 109% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 11.0289183223 93% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.13 12.2367328918 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.14 8.42419426049 97% => OK
difficult_words: 52.0 63.6247240618 82% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.498013245 99% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 25.0 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.