A new advertising tactic called "buzzing"
The article is about new advertising tactic called "buzzing", in which individual people are hired to personally promote products to people they are in contact with. It is also stated in the passage that it has caused a lot of controversy. It points to three main consequences of this method of advertising. However, the lecturer who is a buzzer himself is invited to class to talk about this. He refutes each of author's reasons.
First, the passage states that in this method the consumers are not aware that they are being buzzed and consider it as a personal praise. However, the lecturer claims that the advertising companies hire the buzzers from that product's consumers who have liked that. He claims that they are not being paid to praise what they have not used and liked.
Second, the article claims that people will easily believe what they are hearing from buzzers and do not have guards such as they are watching an advertisement through television. The buzzer in the lecture gainsay this prospective of the author. He states that in contrast to the point of lecture in this method people have more opportunity to ask a lot of questions about different aspects of the product and if the buzzer could not answer them logically they will not buy these products.
Moreover, the passage states that the most important disadvantage of this method is that it potentially will spread dishonesty between people in the society. The man refutes this point. He claims that the companies will not be able to hire buzzers if their product was not good enough. All of the buzzers are telling truth about the product and when people being buzzed try that by themselves they will be more confident about buzzed products.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 70, Rule ID: PROGRESSIVE_VERBS[1]
Message: This verb is normally not used in the progressive form. Try a simple form instead.
...at people will easily believe what they are hearing from buzzers and do not have guards suc...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 286, Rule ID: ALL_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'all the'.
Suggestion: All the
...s if their product was not good enough. All of the buzzers are telling truth about the pro...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, however, if, moreover, second, so, in contrast, such as, in contrast to
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 10.4613686534 182% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 12.0772626932 141% => OK
Pronoun: 42.0 22.412803532 187% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 38.0 30.3222958057 125% => OK
Nominalization: 1.0 5.01324503311 20% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1438.0 1373.03311258 105% => OK
No of words: 294.0 270.72406181 109% => OK
Chars per words: 4.89115646259 5.08290768461 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.14082457966 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.63967493304 2.5805825403 102% => OK
Unique words: 138.0 145.348785872 95% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.469387755102 0.540411800872 87% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 438.3 419.366225166 105% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 3.25607064018 184% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
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: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 58.3854624219 49.2860985944 118% => OK
Chars per sentence: 95.8666666667 110.228320801 87% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.6 21.698381199 90% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.6 7.06452816374 79% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 4.33554083885 161% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 4.45695364238 45% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.27373068433 140% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0832506114981 0.272083759551 31% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0277594084687 0.0996497079465 28% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0547359825127 0.0662205650399 83% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0613793974554 0.162205337803 38% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0441041151496 0.0443174109184 100% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.4 13.3589403974 85% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 60.65 53.8541721854 113% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 11.0289183223 86% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.08 12.2367328918 91% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.8 8.42419426049 93% => OK
difficult_words: 60.0 63.6247240618 94% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 10.7273730684 79% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => 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.