Professors benefit from appearing on TV.
The reading is about the presence of academic professionals on TV bring salubrious effects on among professor self, universities and also public. It provides three supporting ideas in order to buttress its position. However, the speaker says the opposite of reading. She refutes each of the passage claim.
First, the article asserts that the appearance of professor on TV helps to gain reputation. But, the professor denies this and she says, it is not good for the professor because the fellow professors are think he or she is not professional and also a serious scholar rather than an entertainer. That is why, the professor is not invited a scholar discussion and devoid from getting research fund.
Second, the reading states that university also benefitted from their professors appearance in the TV as it helps to increase the publicity. But, the narrator refutes this assertion. She describes, the attended professor rather deprived university as well as his or her students as most of the time he or she expensed doing travel, rehearsal and make him or herself fit for TV presence.
Third, the passage claims that public also gets benefit of learning from the professor. The point is quite incoherent with the speaker. She explains, TV is not a place for serious scholarly discussion. On the other hand, TV place is limited only for title, brief summary and introduction of the topic. And as a result, people are not get the insights from the professor.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 205, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'thought'.
Suggestion: thought
...essor because the fellow professors are think he or she is not professional and also ...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, second, so, third, well, as a result, as well as, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.4613686534 96% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 0.0 5.04856512141 0% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 7.30242825607 151% => OK
Relative clauses : 4.0 12.0772626932 33% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 23.0 22.412803532 103% => OK
Preposition: 24.0 30.3222958057 79% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 5.01324503311 160% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1229.0 1373.03311258 90% => OK
No of words: 244.0 270.72406181 90% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.0368852459 5.08290768461 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.95227774224 4.04702891845 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.78532683042 2.5805825403 108% => OK
Unique words: 136.0 145.348785872 94% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.55737704918 0.540411800872 103% => OK
syllable_count: 370.8 419.366225166 88% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 3.25607064018 184% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 21.2450331126 75% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 51.9869214322 49.2860985944 105% => OK
Chars per sentence: 81.9333333333 110.228320801 74% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.2666666667 21.698381199 75% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.26666666667 7.06452816374 89% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 4.33554083885 161% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 4.45695364238 22% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.27373068433 164% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.428245955489 0.272083759551 157% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.130918593869 0.0996497079465 131% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.133003498918 0.0662205650399 201% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.25829713896 0.162205337803 159% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0980463982465 0.0443174109184 221% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.4 13.3589403974 78% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 63.7 53.8541721854 118% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.4 11.0289183223 76% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.66 12.2367328918 95% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.51 8.42419426049 101% => OK
difficult_words: 63.0 63.6247240618 99% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 10.7273730684 79% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 10.498013245 80% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => 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.