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.
Both the reading and lecture discuss whether buzzing, new strategy started by company reveal truth about product or not The former argues that buzzing has a lot of misinterpretation and many public wants to ban it, and there are three reasons to doing so, but latter challenges each of these points.
First of all, the author of passage asserts that consumers usually mislead by buzzers, who are just paid by advertising companies by spreading bogus.
However, the professor in lecture contends that this hypothesis does not hold true because company usually hire buzzers to promote authentic product and spread genuine products. In fact, the lecture himself work as a part time and telephone service which he has been promoted is actually good.
Secondly, according to the passage, the expert opined that buzzers usually pretend as single individual person so that they might not have to listen complain from consumers. In contrast, the lecture objects this idea. He supports her argument by presenting the example of himself as buzzers and still listening huge question from consumers about price of products, its quality and so forth. If consumers get appropriate answer, then only they will buy the products.
Finally, the passage claims that buzzers usually breaks the truth of people, so that they will break the chain of civilization by their counterfeit. Nevertheless, like two suggestions before, the professor in his lecture proclaims that this claims is not feasible because buzzers mostly opened with general public. This is because he has also gotten so many praise and trust from people.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 217, Rule ID: EN_COMPOUNDS
Message: This word is normally spelled with hyphen.
Suggestion: part-time
... In fact, the lecture himself work as a part time and telephone service which he has been...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 8, column 300, Rule ID: GENERAL_XX[1]
Message: Use simply 'public'.
Suggestion: public
...ible because buzzers mostly opened with general public. This is because he has also gotten so ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 8, column 354, Rule ID: MANY_NN_U[2]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun praise seems to be uncountable; consider using: 'much praise', 'a good deal of praise'.
Suggestion: much praise; a good deal of praise
.... This is because he has also gotten so many praise and trust from people.
^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, finally, first, however, if, nevertheless, second, secondly, so, still, then, in contrast, in fact, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 6.0 10.4613686534 57% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 5.04856512141 59% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 7.30242825607 137% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 26.0 22.412803532 116% => OK
Preposition: 31.0 30.3222958057 102% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1370.0 1373.03311258 100% => OK
No of words: 258.0 270.72406181 95% => OK
Chars per words: 5.31007751938 5.08290768461 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.00778971557 4.04702891845 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.58821874451 2.5805825403 100% => OK
Unique words: 163.0 145.348785872 112% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.631782945736 0.540411800872 117% => OK
syllable_count: 402.3 419.366225166 96% => 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: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => 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: 23.0 21.2450331126 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 66.295606476 49.2860985944 135% => OK
Chars per sentence: 124.545454545 110.228320801 113% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.4545454545 21.698381199 108% => OK
Discourse Markers: 12.0909090909 7.06452816374 171% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 4.33554083885 161% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 4.45695364238 22% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.27373068433 70% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.179341370794 0.272083759551 66% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0585171237659 0.0996497079465 59% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0407088801768 0.0662205650399 61% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0949998658453 0.162205337803 59% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0314591830666 0.0443174109184 71% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.3 13.3589403974 115% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.13 53.8541721854 89% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 11.0289183223 112% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.81 12.2367328918 113% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.06 8.42419426049 108% => OK
difficult_words: 70.0 63.6247240618 110% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 18.0 10.7273730684 168% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.498013245 107% => OK
text_standard: 18.0 11.2008830022 161% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 90.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 27.0 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.