The reading states that TV appearances benefit professors and their universities. However, the lecturer questions these benefits .
In his commentary, the author states that TV appearances, being available to a wider community and general public, are of great benefit not only to professors themselves but also to their universities. However, the lecturer questions whether these benefits outweigh potential losses and reputational risks.
The first contradicting point is the reputation of professors among narrow academic community. According to the reading, professors gain reputation from a wider audience, appearing on the TV. Indeed, he believes that when professors appear on the TV, their importance as scholars grows. The lecturer rebuts this argument, saying that professors’ reputation is suffering from the attendance on TV shows, because they are considered not serious scholars by their peers. As a result, the number of invitations to academic researches may decline for professors, attending on the TV.
Another controversial issue is the benefits for universities in terms of additional donations and applications from perspective students. The author claims that collaboration between professors and TV shows’ providers leads to improved reputation of universities, which, in turn, attracts students and increases the amount of donations. The lecturer, on the other hand, posits that professors waste time, by doing preparations for the shows. She thinks that these preparations are made in the prejudice to professors’ general work. Thus, the time spent on teaching is eventually reduced.
The third aspect of the debate is the gain of general public, who attend professors’ TV shows. The author points out that in terms of lack of personal meetings, viewers of these shows have a chance to learn from experts and taste a real expertise. This point is challenged by the lecturer, who says that professors usually do not give in-depth academic lectures on the TV. In other words, the lectures, appearing on the TV, are simple and are not a point of interest for the experienced part of the audience.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 100, Rule ID: GENERAL_XX[1]
Message: Use simply 'public'.
Suggestion: public
...eing available to a wider community and general public, are of great benefit not only to profe...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 47, Rule ID: GENERAL_XX[1]
Message: Use simply 'public'.
Suggestion: public
...ird aspect of the debate is the gain of general public, who attend professors’ TV shows. The a...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, may, so, third, thus, as a result, in other words, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 10.4613686534 115% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 1.0 5.04856512141 20% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 7.30242825607 110% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 22.412803532 94% => OK
Preposition: 46.0 30.3222958057 152% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 5.01324503311 199% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1687.0 1373.03311258 123% => OK
No of words: 310.0 270.72406181 115% => OK
Chars per words: 5.44193548387 5.08290768461 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.19604776685 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.08777085033 2.5805825403 120% => OK
Unique words: 169.0 145.348785872 116% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.545161290323 0.540411800872 101% => OK
syllable_count: 503.1 419.366225166 120% => 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: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 2.5761589404 233% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 13.0662251656 122% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 40.583199649 49.2860985944 82% => OK
Chars per sentence: 105.4375 110.228320801 96% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.375 21.698381199 89% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.9375 7.06452816374 84% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 4.33554083885 185% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.27373068433 23% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.345233041863 0.272083759551 127% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.103540994041 0.0996497079465 104% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0677958900658 0.0662205650399 102% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.211322861118 0.162205337803 130% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0795135243556 0.0443174109184 179% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.9 13.3589403974 104% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 53.8541721854 97% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 11.0289183223 97% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.27 12.2367328918 117% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.81 8.42419426049 105% => OK
difficult_words: 83.0 63.6247240618 130% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => 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.