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.
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. The buzzing has generated a lot of controversies, 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 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.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 1, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Many
many consumers ignore commercial advertiseme...
^^^^
Line 1, column 343, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: They
...hey are being paid to promote anything. they behave as though they were just spontan...
^^^^
Line 7, column 129, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Knowing
...ct is being paid to praise the product. knowing this makes a big difference: we expect ...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, if, may, second, so, well, in general, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 10.4613686534 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 5.04856512141 218% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 10.0 7.30242825607 137% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 12.0772626932 75% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 26.0 22.412803532 116% => OK
Preposition: 27.0 30.3222958057 89% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1457.0 1373.03311258 106% => OK
No of words: 276.0 270.72406181 102% => OK
Chars per words: 5.27898550725 5.08290768461 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.07593519647 4.04702891845 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.09917124791 2.5805825403 120% => OK
Unique words: 165.0 145.348785872 114% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.597826086957 0.540411800872 111% => OK
syllable_count: 428.4 419.366225166 102% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 5.0 8.23620309051 61% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 5.0 1.51434878587 330% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 53.7425837314 49.2860985944 109% => OK
Chars per sentence: 104.071428571 110.228320801 94% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.7142857143 21.698381199 91% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.14285714286 7.06452816374 59% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => 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: 0.447380512399 0.272083759551 164% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.141746726125 0.0996497079465 142% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.192872744408 0.0662205650399 291% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.263102463781 0.162205337803 162% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.229305590596 0.0443174109184 517% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.3 13.3589403974 100% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 53.8541721854 97% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 11.0289183223 97% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.34 12.2367328918 109% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.7 8.42419426049 103% => OK
difficult_words: 72.0 63.6247240618 113% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 10.7273730684 84% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.0 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.