The passage talks about the benefits provided when a professor appears on television news program to the university, the viewing public and the professor himself. The speaker opposes this claim by stating that the act of visiting such staged shows rather have more adverse effects for all the concerned parties.
First of all, the passage tells us about the benefits brought by the exposure of the television appearance to the professor. It brings recognition of the professor's work and identity among people who are not a part of the academic community. The lecturer opposes this stand by mentioning that usually such a professor is regarded as an entertainer and not a serious personality among the academic circle. Such an act looks unprofessional and leads to the loss of invites to conferences or a stop on the professor's research funding which can have detrimental effects on the professional life of the teacher.
Secondly, the benefits such as publicity of the university is presented as an outcome of the appearance of a faculty of the university which can leads to more donations and admissions. The lecturer claims that when a professor chooses to appear on guest shows it leads to a great waste of time in preparing and rehearsal for the show, time, which the professor could use in doing their research or teaching students. This hurts the resources of the university and the students who are under the professor's guidance.
Thirdly, the passage claims that it is even beneficial for the public when an academic personality visits television news program. According to the speaker, such academic lectures and talks does not help the common public because the television team greatly washes down the content of the topic so as to keep it interesting but tarnishes the purity of the content in this process. The audience do not get to learn as much from these television talk shows as they would if they attend a lecture of the same professor.
Thus, the speaker by stating the following reasons attacks the claims of the passage and tries to convey that the choice of attending a television show by a professor can have many unwanted outcomes which can hurt the professor and the university.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 155, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'professors'' or 'professor's'?
Suggestion: professors'; professor's
...professor. It brings recognition of the professors work and identity among people who are ...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 146, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[2]
Message: The verb 'can' requires the base form of the verb: 'lead'
Suggestion: lead
...f a faculty of the university which can leads to more donations and admissions. The l...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 496, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'professors'' or 'professor's'?
Suggestion: professors'; professor's
...sity and the students who are under the professors guidance. Thirdly, the passage claim...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 296, Rule ID: SO_AS_TO[1]
Message: Use simply 'to'
Suggestion: to
...ly washes down the content of the topic so as to keep it interesting but tarnishes the p...
^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 428, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'this television' or 'these televisions'?
Suggestion: this television; these televisions
...dience do not get to learn as much from these television talk shows as they would if they attend...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, if, look, second, secondly, so, third, thirdly, thus, as to, such as, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 5.0 10.4613686534 48% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 7.30242825607 178% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 12.0772626932 116% => OK
Pronoun: 19.0 22.412803532 85% => OK
Preposition: 48.0 30.3222958057 158% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1846.0 1373.03311258 134% => OK
No of words: 370.0 270.72406181 137% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.98918918919 5.08290768461 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.38581623665 4.04702891845 108% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.76509074135 2.5805825403 107% => OK
Unique words: 176.0 145.348785872 121% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.475675675676 0.540411800872 88% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 576.0 419.366225166 137% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 28.0 21.2450331126 132% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 48.5642379442 49.2860985944 99% => OK
Chars per sentence: 142.0 110.228320801 129% => OK
Words per sentence: 28.4615384615 21.698381199 131% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.23076923077 7.06452816374 102% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 4.19205298013 119% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 4.33554083885 161% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.27373068433 47% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.21153207158 0.272083759551 78% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0805609354775 0.0996497079465 81% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0466974040591 0.0662205650399 71% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.12308191798 0.162205337803 76% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0546080604537 0.0443174109184 123% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.3 13.3589403974 122% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 43.06 53.8541721854 80% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 5.55761589404 202% => Smog_index is high.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 11.0289183223 129% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.96 12.2367328918 98% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.52 8.42419426049 101% => OK
difficult_words: 82.0 63.6247240618 129% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 10.7273730684 107% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.2 10.498013245 126% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => 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.