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 article talks about how television appearances are of great benefit to the professors themeselves as well as to their universities and the general public. The article provides three points to support the same. The speaker, however, disagrees with the conclusion of the article and reftues each of the presented statements.

First, the article says that professors benefit from appearing on television shows because they acquire reputation as authorities in their academic field and are thus, exposed to a much larger audience than they would have originally got. However, the speaker contradicts the argument by saying that professors' appearance on television is not beneficial for them from a professional standpoint. The professor's colleagues tend to develop a reputation of the professor as an entertainer more than a serious scholar. This could have negative consequences for the professor which could range from not being invited to serious conferences or discussions to denial of funds for research.

Second, the article states that the universities also benefit from such appearances. The university gets an improved reputation when a professor of the university appears on a television program. This could not only lead to more donations but also more applications from potential students. The speaker, on the contrary, believes that professors need to spend a lot of their time for television programs which includes travel time, preparation time, rehearsal time, etc which is deducted from their research and interaction with students time. This is a loss for university and its students.

Third, it is suggested in the article that the public also gains from professors' appearance on television programs. Not only are they exposed to real expertise and insight from the professor but also get a chance to learn things they might never have a chance to learn about. According to the speaker, the public are not gaining much from such appearances due to television networks. They do not want serious content to be broadcasred to their audience. They rather want onlt the title of the subject. For instance, they would want the professor to explain the background science and information of a movie that a normal reporter could have presented with a good research.

In sum, the speaker expresses her disapproval of the article's conclusion and provides cogent arguments to support the same.

Votes
Average: 7.3 (1 vote)
Essay Categories

Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 144, Rule ID: GENERAL_XX[1]
Message: Use simply 'public'.
Suggestion: public
...s well as to their universities and the general public. The article provides three points to s...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 215, 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.
...vides three points to support the same. The speaker, however, disagrees with the co...
^^^
Line 3, column 301, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'professors'' or 'professor's'?
Suggestion: professors'; professor's
...contradicts the argument by saying that professors appearance on television is not benefic...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 657, Rule ID: A_UNCOUNTABLE[3]
Message: Uncountable nouns are usually not used with an indefinite article. Use simply 'good research'.
Suggestion: good research
...rmal reporter could have presented with a good research. In sum, the speaker expresses her d...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 54, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'articles'' or 'article's'?
Suggestion: articles'; article's
...peaker expresses her disapproval of the articles conclusion and provides cogent argument...
^^^^^^^^

Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, second, so, third, thus, well, as to, for instance, as well as, on the contrary

Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.4613686534 96% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 5.04856512141 158% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 7.30242825607 151% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 25.0 22.412803532 112% => OK
Preposition: 51.0 30.3222958057 168% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 5.01324503311 259% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2034.0 1373.03311258 148% => OK
No of words: 380.0 270.72406181 140% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.35263157895 5.08290768461 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.41515443553 4.04702891845 109% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.91879476512 2.5805825403 113% => OK
Unique words: 181.0 145.348785872 125% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.476315789474 0.540411800872 88% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 618.3 419.366225166 147% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK

A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 3.25607064018 215% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => 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: 19.0 13.0662251656 145% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 56.0493945198 49.2860985944 114% => OK
Chars per sentence: 107.052631579 110.228320801 97% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.0 21.698381199 92% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.57894736842 7.06452816374 79% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 4.19205298013 119% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 4.33554083885 231% => Less positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
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: 0.261226409788 0.272083759551 96% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0874166770274 0.0996497079465 88% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0510997186447 0.0662205650399 77% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.132558404495 0.162205337803 82% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0751905802001 0.0443174109184 170% => OK

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.8 13.3589403974 103% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 53.8541721854 95% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 11.0289183223 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.75 12.2367328918 112% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.33 8.42419426049 99% => OK
difficult_words: 89.0 63.6247240618 140% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 10.7273730684 112% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.2008830022 125% => 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.