The reading and the lecture are both about the showing of professor on television. The author of the reading believes that they have advantage from the appearances of professor on TV. The lecturer casts doubt on the claims made in the article. She thinks that the professor and the university do not get benefit from this.
First of all, the author points out that the professor can share a lot of knowledge from their appearances on TV. It is mentioned that the professor obtains the trust of the thousands audience on television much more the campus, so the idea of them can spread to all audience. This point is challenged by the lecturer. She says that some professor have more reputation, but another is no. Furthermore, she argues that the reputation of professor cannot get a lot of money.
Secondly, the author contends that the university can get a lot of money from donation of audience. The author notes that the professor can make university much more money. The lecturer rebuts on this argument. She suggests that the professor waste time to go studio. She elaborates on this by mentioning that the professor waste time to do research, which is no value for student.
Finally, the author states that the professor have chance to work another people. The article establishes that the audience can contact the profeassor to work with. The lecturer, on the other hand, posits that the audience is not interested the profeassor. She puts forth that the audience come to watch TV to relax, and they are not come to work homework.
In conclusion, The reading and the lecture are both about the advantage and the disadvantage of the apperance on TV. The lecturer effectively challenges on the claims made in the article.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 185, 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.
...rom the appearances of professor on TV. The lecturer casts doubt on the claims made...
^^^
Line 3, column 175, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'thousands'' or 'thousand's'?
Suggestion: thousands'; thousand's
... the professor obtains the trust of the thousands audience on television much more the ca...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, furthermore, second, secondly, so, in conclusion, first of all, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 10.4613686534 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 12.0772626932 124% => OK
Pronoun: 29.0 22.412803532 129% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 43.0 30.3222958057 142% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 5.01324503311 219% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1445.0 1373.03311258 105% => OK
No of words: 296.0 270.72406181 109% => OK
Chars per words: 4.88175675676 5.08290768461 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.14784890444 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.66959237141 2.5805825403 103% => OK
Unique words: 129.0 145.348785872 89% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.435810810811 0.540411800872 81% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 445.5 419.366225166 106% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 3.25607064018 246% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 12.0 8.23620309051 146% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 13.0662251656 153% => OK
Sentence length: 14.0 21.2450331126 66% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 27.9325526939 49.2860985944 57% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 72.25 110.228320801 66% => OK
Words per sentence: 14.8 21.698381199 68% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.1 7.06452816374 72% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 4.33554083885 161% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 4.45695364238 202% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.27373068433 94% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.174145965484 0.272083759551 64% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0558639953303 0.0996497079465 56% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0399350840592 0.0662205650399 60% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0992234479118 0.162205337803 61% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0508767581715 0.0443174109184 115% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 9.0 13.3589403974 67% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 65.73 53.8541721854 122% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 7.6 11.0289183223 69% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.43 12.2367328918 85% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.26 8.42419426049 86% => OK
difficult_words: 55.0 63.6247240618 86% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 7.6 10.498013245 72% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.2008830022 71% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.