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 professors
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 positive
publicity when their professors appear on TV. When people see a knowledgeable
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 television
viewers normally have no contact with university professors. When professors
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.
In this set of materials, the reading passage says that television appearances are great benefits to the professor, their universities and the general public. They provide three reasons to support this. On the other hand, the professor says that are no benefits for they and refutes each reason on the passage.
First of all, the writer says that professors will acquire reputations from authorities. The lecture opposes this by saying that is not good because this is not good in the academic environment. Professors normally are seen as not serious and they do this because of the entertainment. Furthermore, they do this because of the money as well.
Second, the reading passage claims that will be good for the universities. The woman says this is not good because the professors will spend a lot of time to figure out what the program will show. Actually, the professor needs to put this research on the place that what they really need to research.
Third, the article says that public gains from this appearance. The lecture says that is no benefit to this. She claims that the professors need to be superficial to the public that is not too much experience to understand and they will not go deeper in the topic. They need to be very brief and simple, in fact, not different from the usual programs.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
In this set of materials, the reading pa...
^^^
Line 1, column 147, Rule ID: GENERAL_XX[1]
Message: Use simply 'public'.
Suggestion: public
...e professor, their universities and the general public. They provide three reasons to support ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... refutes each reason on the passage. First of all, the writer says that profe...
^^^
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...o this because of the money as well. Second, the reading passage claims that ...
^^^
Line 7, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...t what they really need to research. Third, the article says that public gain...
^^
Line 8, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...not different from the usual programs.
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, first, furthermore, if, really, second, so, third, well, in fact, first of all, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 10.4613686534 105% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 5.04856512141 139% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 7.30242825607 55% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 28.0 22.412803532 125% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 26.0 30.3222958057 86% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1062.0 1373.03311258 77% => OK
No of words: 217.0 270.72406181 80% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.89400921659 5.08290768461 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.8380880478 4.04702891845 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.66284491869 2.5805825403 103% => OK
Unique words: 107.0 145.348785872 74% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.493087557604 0.540411800872 91% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 312.3 419.366225166 74% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.55342163355 90% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 15.0 21.2450331126 71% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 30.9298910969 49.2860985944 63% => OK
Chars per sentence: 75.8571428571 110.228320801 69% => OK
Words per sentence: 15.5 21.698381199 71% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.64285714286 7.06452816374 108% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 4.19205298013 143% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 4.33554083885 185% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 4.45695364238 45% => More 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: 0.104465743389 0.272083759551 38% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0444970887169 0.0996497079465 45% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0316118417196 0.0662205650399 48% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0721101226478 0.162205337803 44% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0262600855607 0.0443174109184 59% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 9.4 13.3589403974 70% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 73.17 53.8541721854 136% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 6.8 11.0289183223 62% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.79 12.2367328918 88% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.51 8.42419426049 89% => OK
difficult_words: 43.0 63.6247240618 68% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 10.7273730684 79% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.0 10.498013245 76% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.2008830022 71% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 65.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 19.5 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.