The reading and the lecture are both about the professors appearances on television. The author of the reading believes that professors appearances on television are the beneficial things for professors, universities, and the public. The lecturer casts doubt on the claims made in the article. She thinks that professors appearances on television are the not good.
First of all, the author points out that professors have the reputations from appearing on broadcast. It is mentioned that not only the students in the university see the professors, but also thousands of people around the world see them. This point is challenged by the lecturer. She says many professors don't need to have many reputations. Furthermore, she argues that some professors want to give an entertainment for students in the class. Then, these professors may not allow to broadcast.
Secondly, the author contends that universities also benefit from professors appearances. The article notes the universities obtain positive publicity when their professors appear on TV. The lecturer rebuts the article. She suggests the professors appearance on TV is the way that make the professor wasting time. She elaborates on this by mentioning that professors need to take a lot of time to prepare the script, rehearsal, and the time to make them look good on TV.
Finally, the author states that public gains the benefit from professors appearances. The article establishes that viewer can contact the professors via television, and these make the broadcast more renowned. The lecturer, on the other hand, posits that public don't want the serious article.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 235, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...ofessors, universities, and the public. The lecturer casts doubt on the claims made...
^^^
Line 3, column 73, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...out that professors have the reputations from appearing on broadcast. It is menti...
^^
Line 3, column 308, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
... the lecturer. She says many professors dont need to have many reputations. Furtherm...
^^^^
Line 3, column 483, Rule ID: ALLOW_TO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'broadcasting'? Or maybe you should add a pronoun? In active voice, 'allow' + 'to' takes an object, usually a pronoun.
Suggestion: broadcasting
...s. Then, these professors may not allow to broadcast. Secondly, the author contends that ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 238, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'professors'' or 'professor's'?
Suggestion: professors'; professor's
...er rebuts the article. She suggests the professors appearance on TV is the way that make t...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 455, Rule ID: LOOK_WATCH[3]
Message: Did you mean 'watch'?
Suggestion: watch
...t, rehearsal, and the time to make them look good on TV. Finally, the author stat...
^^^^
Line 7, column 262, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
..., on the other hand, posits that public dont want the serious article.
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, furthermore, look, may, second, secondly, so, then, first of all, on the other hand
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: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 22.412803532 107% => OK
Preposition: 31.0 30.3222958057 102% => OK
Nominalization: 2.0 5.01324503311 40% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1378.0 1373.03311258 100% => OK
No of words: 257.0 270.72406181 95% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.36186770428 5.08290768461 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.00390054096 4.04702891845 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.96639467079 2.5805825403 115% => OK
Unique words: 132.0 145.348785872 91% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.513618677043 0.540411800872 95% => OK
syllable_count: 414.0 419.366225166 99% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 3.25607064018 246% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 4.0 1.51434878587 264% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 13.0662251656 138% => OK
Sentence length: 14.0 21.2450331126 66% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 34.0841370004 49.2860985944 69% => OK
Chars per sentence: 76.5555555556 110.228320801 69% => OK
Words per sentence: 14.2777777778 21.698381199 66% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.11111111111 7.06452816374 87% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 7.0 4.19205298013 167% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 4.33554083885 161% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
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: 0.181179151834 0.272083759551 67% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0641727310576 0.0996497079465 64% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0409816161456 0.0662205650399 62% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.115805942614 0.162205337803 71% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0366718556902 0.0443174109184 83% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.0 13.3589403974 82% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 57.27 53.8541721854 106% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.8 11.0289183223 80% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.22 12.2367328918 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.59 8.42419426049 90% => OK
difficult_words: 53.0 63.6247240618 83% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 10.7273730684 70% => OK
gunning_fog: 7.6 10.498013245 72% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.2008830022 71% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 85.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 25.5 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.