The reading and lecture are about the impacts of speaking by the Professors on the television. The reading says that it would have a several benifits to the large number of stakeholders when doing this, and provides three reaons for support. However, the lecture on the reading passage feels that this types of activities would be questionables, and refutes each of the authors' reasons.
To begin with, the reading states that Professors would acquired prestige on explaining in their academic field with the public. Previously, they shared their views only within the narraw range, and after this they would become celebrity. The challeged on it by saying that it would not be good for the Professors, and the reputation would be towards only with the fellow scholars. Additionally, by giving time to the speaking they would not make time for the time for different important sapects like student meeting within the University.
Also, the author mentions that it would be beneficial to the University as well, which would obtain good public exposure. As a result, it would led to increase in the funds obtained by the University and a number of student applicant. However, the speaker claims that it would expense a lot of Professor time like travelling, preparation for lecture, rehearsal. According to the Professor, they would not able to gives the time to University business and to their students.
Finally, the reading posits that public learnt a lot from the experts, and would obtained the real experience. On the contrary, the Professor opposes on it by saying that the public does not expects any indepth knowledge. He also argues that they always seeks only about the subject in a brief explanation of the topic.
The reading and lecture are about the impacts of speaking by the Professors on the television. The reading says that it would have several benefits to a large number of stakeholders when doing this, and provides three reasons for support. However, the lecture on the reading passage feels that these types of activities would be questionable, and refutes each of the authors' reasons.
To begin with, the reading states that Professors would acquire prestige on explaining in their academic field with the public. Previously, they shared their views only within the narrow range, and after this, they would become a celebrity. The challenged on it by saying that it would not be good for the Professors, and the reputation would be towards only with the fellow scholars. Additionally, by giving time to the speaking they would not make time for the time for different important aspects like student meetings within the University.
Also, the author mentions that it would be beneficial to the University as well, which would obtain good public exposure. As a result, it would lead to an increase in the funds obtained by the University and a number of student applicants. However, the speaker claims that it would expense a lot of Professor time like traveling, preparation for the lecture, rehearsal. According to the Professor, they would not able to gives the time to University business and to their students.
Finally, the reading posits that the public learned a lot from the experts, and would obtain the real experience. On the contrary, Professor opposes it by saying that the public does not expect any in-depth knowledge. He also argues that they always seek only about the subject in a brief explanation of the topic.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 152, Rule ID: LARGE_NUMBER_OF[1]
Message: Specify a number, remove phrase, or simply use 'many' or 'numerous'
Suggestion: many; numerous
... that it would have several benefits to a large number of stakeholders when doing this, and provi...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 290, Rule ID: A_LOT_OF_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun Professor seems to be countable; consider using: 'a lot of professors'.
Suggestion: a lot of professors
...he speaker claims that it would expense a lot of Professor time like traveling, preparation for th...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 314, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ect in a brief explanation of the topic.
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, however, if, so, well, as a result, on the contrary, to begin with
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: 13.0 5.04856512141 257% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 8.0 7.30242825607 110% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 28.0 22.412803532 125% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 41.0 30.3222958057 135% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1453.0 1373.03311258 106% => OK
No of words: 287.0 270.72406181 106% => OK
Chars per words: 5.06271777003 5.08290768461 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.11595363751 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.67643905377 2.5805825403 104% => OK
Unique words: 144.0 145.348785872 99% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.501742160279 0.540411800872 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 439.2 419.366225166 105% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 5.0 1.51434878587 330% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 18.6230053034 49.2860985944 38% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 103.785714286 110.228320801 94% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.5 21.698381199 94% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.78571428571 7.06452816374 82% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 4.45695364238 67% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.27373068433 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.351757340157 0.272083759551 129% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.131918527092 0.0996497079465 132% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.150823911424 0.0662205650399 228% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.23936830787 0.162205337803 148% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.203372298097 0.0443174109184 459% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.7 13.3589403974 95% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 59.64 53.8541721854 111% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.0289183223 90% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.07 12.2367328918 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.37 8.42419426049 99% => OK
difficult_words: 68.0 63.6247240618 107% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.