Reading
Many consumers ignore commercial advertisements. In response, advertising companies have started using a new tactic, called “buzzing.” The advertisers hire people,buzzers,who personally promote (buzz) products to people they know or meet. The key part is that the buzzers do not reveal that they are being paid to promote anything. They behave as though they were just spontaneously praising a product during normal conversation. Buzzing has generated a lot of controversy, and many critics would like to see it banned.
First, the critics complain that consumers should know whether a person praising a product is being paid to praise the product. Knowing this makes a big difference: we expect the truth from people who we believe do not have any motive for misleading us. But with buzzing what you hear is just paid advertising, which may well give a person incorrect information about the buzzed product.
Second, since buzzers pretend they are just private individuals, consumers listen to their endorsements less critically than they should. With advertisements in print or on TV, the consumer is on guard for questionable claims or empty descriptions such as “new and improved.” But when consumers do not know they are being lobbied, they may accept claims they would otherwise be suspicious of. This may suit the manufacturers, but it could really harm consumers.
And worst of all is the harmful effect that buzzing is likely to have on social relationships. Once we become aware that people we meet socially may be buzzers with a hidden agenda, we will become less trustful of people in general. So buzzing will result in the spread of mistrust and the expectation of dishonesty.
Listening
Hi, my name is Bill. Um, I was talking your professor in the subway about the great phone service that I was using. And it turned out we’re both interested in marketing. So he asked me to talk in his marketing classes. You see, I am a buzzer, part time, you know. During the day, I’m a student just like you. Now, I read that piece attacking buzzing, it is really misleading. How would it describe buzzing leading a lot, and gives a wrong impression?
First, it makes it sound like buzzers don’t tell the truth about the products they’re buzzing. That’s not true. How buzzing works this. Companies find people who use their products and who really think product is good. So buzzing is not like ordinary advertisement where an actress is paid to read some lies. Um, yes, I get paid for telling you what I am thinking, but you get the truth from buzzers. I really do think my phone service is great. That is why the company hired me.
Second, the reading makes it seem that when a buzzer talks to someone, the person believes whatever they hear from the buzzer. Not true. In fact, the opposite is true. People I talk to ask a lot of questions about the products I buzz, that is about the price, service and how long I used the product. If I don’t have good answers, they won’t buy the products.
Finally, if you believe what you read, buzzing will destroy civilization, that is stupid. If a product is bad, the company can’t recruit buzzers. So what you get from a buzzer is not only sincere but is likely to be about a good product. If you try the phone service I use, you’re gonna love it. So people who try buzzed products are going to have a good experience. So end up being more trustful and open up to people.
The lecturer challenges the topic proposed in the reading that many critics would like to see buzzing banned, because it gives a wrong impression.
First, the article suggests that consumers should know whether a person praising a product is being paid to praise the product. However, the lecturer argues that the buzzer would tell how to use the product. they not only advertise the product, but also tell the truth to consumers. The truth that the buzzer thinks the phone service is great would be the reason why the company hire buzzers.
Second, the essay supposes that consumers listen to their endorsements less critically than they should. but the lecturer supports that people ask questions about the product, such as price, services and how long the buzzer have used the product and so on. consumers would not purchase the product as long as they obtain answers.
Third, the passage indicates that buzzing is likely to have harmful effect on social relationships. Nevertheless, the lecturer points out that if the product is bad, the company would not recruit buzzers. it is likely that the product is good, and people would acquire a favorable experience after try the product. In this way, they would be more trustful to people.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 209, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: They
...zzer would tell how to use the product. they not only advertise the product, but als...
^^^^
Line 9, column 106, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: But
...ments less critically than they should. but the lecturer supports that people ask q...
^^^
Line 13, column 206, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: It
... the company would not recruit buzzers. it is likely that the product is good, and...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, nevertheless, second, so, third, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 10.4613686534 86% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 5.04856512141 178% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 12.0772626932 75% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 17.0 22.412803532 76% => OK
Preposition: 15.0 30.3222958057 49% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 1.0 5.01324503311 20% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1048.0 1373.03311258 76% => OK
No of words: 207.0 270.72406181 76% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.06280193237 5.08290768461 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.79308509922 4.04702891845 94% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.45035660133 2.5805825403 95% => OK
Unique words: 116.0 145.348785872 80% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.56038647343 0.540411800872 104% => OK
syllable_count: 303.3 419.366225166 72% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.51434878587 198% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 21.2450331126 80% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 28.7096334974 49.2860985944 58% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 87.3333333333 110.228320801 79% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.25 21.698381199 79% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.91666666667 7.06452816374 84% => 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: 3.0 4.27373068433 70% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.213506287801 0.272083759551 78% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0823258741795 0.0996497079465 83% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0314212335083 0.0662205650399 47% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.121018069418 0.162205337803 75% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.059421671542 0.0443174109184 134% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.0 13.3589403974 82% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 62.68 53.8541721854 116% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.7 11.0289183223 79% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.77 12.2367328918 96% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.06 8.42419426049 96% => OK
difficult_words: 47.0 63.6247240618 74% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 10.7273730684 70% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.498013245 84% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 68.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 20.5 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.