The professor in the lecture opposes the views presented in the reading about a TV appearance of a professor benefiting the professor themselves, university or general public.
To begin with, the professor states the TV appearance is not actually good for the professor, since such professors might gain reputation among other fellow professors as the one who chooses to entertain rather than to educate and gives them a feeling of the professor not being a serious scholar, this bad reputation will result in him getting excluded in academic meetings and discussions. This might also result in not getting funds for his research. This explanation stands in direct contradiction to what is stated in the reading as TV appearance being good to the professor.
Secondly, the listening passage notes the point that for every minute spent by the professor on the TV appearance and related things like preparation for it, rehearsal, etc, an equivalent minute of time is lost in his profession and University related activities like teaching, research and other student discussions. This definitely is not good for the University. Even this, is in contrast to what is posited in the reading.
Finally, as stated by the reading, the TV appearance of the professor, who is an expert in that field, will give chance for the viewers to get a deeper understanding of the topic is not valid as explained in the listening. Not many TV networks actually like to include such deeper, academic material in their shows, the aspect they care about the most is only the attention grabbing Academic title itself, not the actual intellectual content. As a result, there is no actual impact by the material delivered by the professor on the public.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 161, Rule ID: GENERAL_XX[1]
Message: Use simply 'public'.
Suggestion: public
...the professor themselves, university or general public. To begin with, the professor states...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, finally, second, secondly, so, in contrast, as a result, in contrast to, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 10.4613686534 115% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 4.0 12.0772626932 33% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 16.0 22.412803532 71% => OK
Preposition: 40.0 30.3222958057 132% => 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: 1450.0 1373.03311258 106% => OK
No of words: 286.0 270.72406181 106% => OK
Chars per words: 5.06993006993 5.08290768461 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.11236361783 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.86513660677 2.5805825403 111% => OK
Unique words: 146.0 145.348785872 100% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.51048951049 0.540411800872 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 451.8 419.366225166 108% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.23620309051 73% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.25165562914 240% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
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: 28.0 21.2450331126 132% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 110.490904603 49.2860985944 224% => The lengths of sentences changed so frequently.
Chars per sentence: 145.0 110.228320801 132% => OK
Words per sentence: 28.6 21.698381199 132% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.2 7.06452816374 144% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 4.45695364238 45% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.141311044354 0.272083759551 52% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0577977304875 0.0996497079465 58% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.041946748453 0.0662205650399 63% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0970238855463 0.162205337803 60% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0345620438288 0.0443174109184 78% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.7 13.3589403974 125% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 43.06 53.8541721854 80% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 11.0289183223 129% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.72 12.2367328918 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.17 8.42419426049 109% => OK
difficult_words: 75.0 63.6247240618 118% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 18.5 10.7273730684 172% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.2 10.498013245 126% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.2008830022 116% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.0 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.