Professors' appearance on television.
The author of the reading and the lecturer both are about professors' appearance on television. The reading states professors’ appearance on the television screen will benefit the professor himself/herself as they acquire reputation. On other hand university will gain publicity and the public will also get taste of expertise and insight. However, the lecturer contradicts these points in the reading by providing some logical reasons.
First of all, the author of the reading claims that professors' appearance on television will help him/her to acquire reputation in public since she/he presents the on going research to the public. However, the lecturer refutes it by mentioning professors appearing on the television tend to reputation among fellow professors who are not serious in lecturing and their research which may result in boycotting the TV professors from the important conferences and they may not get fund for their research as well. Therefore, the lecturer suggests that the appearance of the professor is not good from the professional stand.
Secondly, the author in the reading states that university will gain publicity from the professors' appearance on TV. Nevertheless, the lecturer disputes this by stating it as loss of professors' time. She feels professor has to prepare for the topic to be presented on TV; he/she has to spend time on looking good and travel from university to TV station. Moreover, the professor has to stop the ongoing research to appear on the television and she/he will not be available in the university for the students who want to meet her/him to discuss academic matters.
Finally, the reading’s author suggests that the public will get chance to learn from the professor and get the taste of expertise and insight. The lecturer argues with this point, she thinks television network wants only academic topics for their own benefits and publicity; they do not go in depth to the topic. Likewise, the public who has done little homework on the topic will only get introduction of the topic not detailed explanations. Hence, professors' appearance will not benefit public at all; however, it will be loss of professors' time and publicity of the television network.
In conclusion, the lecturer has effectively challenged the main points of the reading passage by providing cogent reasons about the professors’ appearance on television.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 53, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'professors'' or 'professor's'?
Suggestion: professors'; professor's
..., the author of the reading claims that professors appearance on television will help him/...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 165, Rule ID: ON_GOING[1]
Message: Did you mean 'ongoing'?
Suggestion: ongoing
...ion in public since she/he presents the on going research to the public. However, the le...
^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 89, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'professors'' or 'professor's'?
Suggestion: professors'; professor's
...university will gain publicity from the professors appearance on TV. Nevertheless, the lec...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 596, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...nd publicity of the television network. In conclusion, the lecturer has effectiv...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, first, hence, however, likewise, look, may, moreover, nevertheless, second, secondly, so, therefore, well, as to, in conclusion, 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: 12.0 5.04856512141 238% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 11.0 7.30242825607 151% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 12.0772626932 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 30.0 22.412803532 134% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 59.0 30.3222958057 195% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 5.01324503311 239% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2036.0 1373.03311258 148% => OK
No of words: 381.0 270.72406181 141% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.343832021 5.08290768461 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.41805628031 4.04702891845 109% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.98530326799 2.5805825403 116% => OK
Unique words: 160.0 145.348785872 110% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.419947506562 0.540411800872 78% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 620.1 419.366225166 148% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => OK
Article: 13.0 8.23620309051 158% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 13.0662251656 122% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 21.2450331126 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 55.5016539731 49.2860985944 113% => OK
Chars per sentence: 127.25 110.228320801 115% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.8125 21.698381199 110% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.75 7.06452816374 138% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 4.19205298013 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 4.33554083885 185% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
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: 0.347883316987 0.272083759551 128% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.149370198554 0.0996497079465 150% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.124806555246 0.0662205650399 188% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.250244118196 0.162205337803 154% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.086926846147 0.0443174109184 196% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.6 13.3589403974 117% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.13 53.8541721854 89% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 5.55761589404 202% => Smog_index is high.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 11.0289183223 112% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.99 12.2367328918 114% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.89 8.42419426049 94% => OK
difficult_words: 75.0 63.6247240618 118% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 10.7273730684 84% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.498013245 107% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
Rates: 73.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.0 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.