Professors are normally found in university classrooms, offices, and libraries doing research and lecturing to their students. More and more, however, they also appear as guests on television news programs, giving expert commentary on the latest events in the world. These television appearances are of great benefit to the profes- sors themselves as well as to their universities and the general public.
Professors benefit from appearing on television because by doing so they acquire reputations as authorities in their academic fields among a much wider audience than they have on campus. If a professor publishes views in an academic journal, only other scholars will learn about and appreciate those views. But when a professor appears on TV, thousands of people outside the narrow academic community become aware of the professor’s ideas. So when professors share their ideas with a television audience, the professors’ importance as scholars is enhanced.
Universities also benefit from such appearances. The universities receive posi- tive publicity when their professors appear on TV. When people see a knowledge- able faculty member of a university on television, they think more highly of that university. That then leads to an improved reputation for the university. And that improved reputation in turn leads to more donations for the university and more applications from potential students.
Finally, the public gains from professors’ appearing on television. Most tele- vision viewers normally have no contact with university professors. When profes- sors appear on television, viewers have a chance to learn from experts and to be exposed to views they might otherwise never hear about. Television is generally a medium for commentary that tends to be superficial, not deep or thoughtful. From professors on television, by contrast, viewers get a taste of real expertise and insight.
Both the reading passage and the listening section talk about the appaeaances of professors on television. The former argues that this is advantageous primarily because of three reasons, but the lecture contradicts each of these three points.
First of all the reading passage states that the professors gain a widespread reputation as an authority on the subject furthermore, this reputation spreads to an audience not limited to academic people which was not possible without television. The lecture, however, refutes this by claiming that the professors who appear on television often acquire a reputation as an entertainer rather than a serious academic researcher. such a reputation harms the professor's ability in getting research grants from various institutions.
Second, the text avers that the universities also benefits from the aforementioned television appearances as they obtain a more positive reputation which leads to more dontations and more applications from potential students. In contrast, the listening section states that it is a waste of the professor's time to reherse for their television
shows
and putting on make up. furthermore, the listening section states that the professor could have used this time more productively by focusing on research, talking to students and on other university businesses.
Last but not least, the passage maintains that the viewers also benefit from such television
shows
as they are exposed to new opinions of field experts that they would have otherwise not have received. The lecturer claims that since the television networks dont want an indepth report on the academic field, any normal television reporter may have done his homewroks may provide the same details that were provided by the professor.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 427, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Such
...her than a serious academic researcher. such a reputation harms the professors abili...
^^^^
Line 4, column 455, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'professors'' or 'professor's'?
Suggestion: professors'; professor's
...researcher. such a reputation harms the professors ability in getting research grants from...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 14, column 159, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...aims that since the television networks dont want an indepth report on the academic ...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, furthermore, however, may, second, so, in contrast, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 5.0 10.4613686534 48% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 12.0772626932 108% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 22.412803532 94% => OK
Preposition: 32.0 30.3222958057 106% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 5.01324503311 180% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1515.0 1373.03311258 110% => OK
No of words: 272.0 270.72406181 100% => OK
Chars per words: 5.56985294118 5.08290768461 110% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.06108636974 4.04702891845 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.93797389978 2.5805825403 114% => OK
Unique words: 154.0 145.348785872 106% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.566176470588 0.540411800872 105% => OK
syllable_count: 467.1 419.366225166 111% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 3.25607064018 31% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 10.0 13.0662251656 77% => 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: 27.0 21.2450331126 127% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 49.0841114822 49.2860985944 100% => OK
Chars per sentence: 151.5 110.228320801 137% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.2 21.698381199 125% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.2 7.06452816374 116% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 4.09492273731 147% => Less paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 4.45695364238 67% => 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: 0.218471991403 0.272083759551 80% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0824405195921 0.0996497079465 83% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.058702264525 0.0662205650399 89% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.107885612265 0.162205337803 67% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0669549373075 0.0443174109184 151% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 18.4 13.3589403974 138% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 35.61 53.8541721854 66% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 5.55761589404 202% => Smog_index is high.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.0 11.0289183223 136% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.32 12.2367328918 125% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.21 8.42419426049 109% => OK
difficult_words: 73.0 63.6247240618 115% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.5 10.7273730684 144% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.8 10.498013245 122% => OK
text_standard: 16.0 11.2008830022 143% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Maximum four paragraphs wanted.
Rates: 78.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.5 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.