Online encyclopedias vs traditional version of encyclopedias
The lecturer controverts all the points that has been made by the author of the reading. She also discredits all the main arguments presented by reading.
First and foremost, the author asserts that online encyclopedias are not reliable because the individuals who write the articles are not professionals and usually do not have academic education in that specific field they write about. Thereby, there are so much mistakes in them, which would be transferred among people. In contrast, the professor opposes with this statement due to the fact that even printed version of encyclopedias were not perfect. The mistakes in the traditional versions were not capable of being corrected, but this is an advantage of the online encyclopedias. She strongly believes that no perfect encyclopedia can be found.
Furthermore, the reading passage holds the view that online encyclopedias have associated with so many problems such as hacking. On the contrary, the lecturer argues that they have special editors for their articles. Moreover, they have the advantage of being changed, but with the traditional version of encyclopedias such an option would not be available. In fact, one mistake would be proliferated among people using the traditional encyclopedias.
Eventually, the reading passage contends that the online encyclopedias contain much information that are not even much related to the main subject and that would distract the attention off the main subject. However, the speaker disputes that this disadvantage is not comparable to that of the traditional versions. She states that in printed version of encyclopedias because of the limited space, the writers should exclude some information. As a matter of fact, they had to decide whether diverse information is important or not. However, the online encyclopedias present a great spectrum of diversity in information. In this way readers are able to determine which information they are interested in.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 258, Rule ID: MUCH_COUNTABLE[1]
Message: Use 'many' with countable nouns.
Suggestion: many
...they write about. Thereby, there are so much mistakes in them, which would be transf...
^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'but', 'first', 'furthermore', 'however', 'if', 'moreover', 'so', 'in contrast', 'in fact', 'such as', 'as a matter of fact', 'on the contrary']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.213649851632 0.261695866417 82% => OK
Verbs: 0.163204747774 0.158904122519 103% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0890207715134 0.0723426182421 123% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0682492581602 0.0435111971325 157% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0296735905045 0.0277247811725 107% => OK
Prepositions: 0.13056379822 0.128828473217 101% => OK
Participles: 0.0474777448071 0.0370669169778 128% => OK
Conjunctions: 3.04301509627 2.5805825403 118% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0148367952522 0.0208969081088 71% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.00154638098197 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.127596439169 0.128158765124 100% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0178041543027 0.0158828679856 112% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0148367952522 0.0114777025283 129% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 1968.0 1645.83664459 120% => OK
No of words: 305.0 271.125827815 112% => OK
Chars per words: 6.45245901639 6.08160592843 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.17902490978 4.04852973271 103% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.406557377049 0.374372842146 109% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.347540983607 0.287516216867 121% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.245901639344 0.187439937562 131% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.16393442623 0.113142543107 145% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.04301509627 2.5805825403 118% => OK
Unique words: 159.0 145.348785872 109% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.52131147541 0.539623497131 97% => OK
Word variations: 53.0414649731 53.8517498576 98% => OK
How many sentences: 17.0 13.0529801325 130% => OK
Sentence length: 17.9411764706 21.7502111507 82% => OK
Sentence length SD: 45.0369321726 49.3711431718 91% => OK
Chars per sentence: 115.764705882 132.220823453 88% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.9411764706 21.7502111507 82% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.764705882353 0.878197800319 87% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 3.39072847682 29% => OK
Readability: 52.6952748312 50.5018328374 104% => OK
Elegance: 1.5 1.90840788429 79% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.216946323373 0.549887131256 39% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.119501752408 0.142949733639 84% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0853483194069 0.0787303798458 108% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.547638353995 0.631733273073 87% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.168672837213 0.139662658121 121% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.107168152563 0.266732575781 40% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0995814675047 0.103435571967 96% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.409035447054 0.414875509568 99% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0884857876984 0.0530846634433 167% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.162893152602 0.40443939384 40% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.082063465164 0.0528353158467 155% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 4.33554083885 161% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 4.45695364238 179% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.26048565121 47% => OK
Positive topic words: 5.0 3.49668874172 143% => OK
Negative topic words: 6.0 3.62251655629 166% => OK
Neutral topic words: 2.0 3.1766004415 63% => OK
Total topic words: 13.0 10.2958057395 126% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 86.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 26.0 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.