READING
Professors are normally found in university classrooms, offices, and libraries doing research and lecturing to their students. More and more, however, they also appear as guests on television news programs, giving expert commentary on the latest events in the world. These television appearances are of great benefit to the professors themselves as well as to their universities and the general public.
Professors benefit from appearing on television because by doing so acquire reputations as authorities in their academic fields among a much wider audience than they have on campus. If a professor publishes views in an academic journal, only other scholars will learn about and appreciate those views. But when a professor appears on TV, thousands of people outside the narrow academic community become aware of the professor's ideas. So when professors share their ideas with a television audience, the professors' importance as scholars is enhanced. Universities also benefit from such appearances. The universities receive positive publicity
when their professors appear on TV. When people see a knowledgeable faculty member of a university on television, they think more highly of that university. That then leads to an improved reputation for the university. And that improved reputation in turn leads to more donations for the university and more applications from potential students.Finally, the public gains from professors' appearing on television. Most television viewers normally have no contact with university professors. When professors appear on television, viewers have a chance to learn from experts and to be exposed to views they might otherwise never hear about. Television is generally a medium for commentary that tends to be superficial, not deep or thoughtful. From professors on television, by contrast, viewers get a taste of real expertise and insight.
LISTENING SCRIPT
Lately, we’ve been seeing some professors on television. Though it’s sometimes claimed to be a good thing, we should question whether anybody really benefits from it. First of all, it’s not good for the professors themselves—not from a professional standpoint. Rightly or wrongly, a professor who appears on TV tends to get the reputation among fellow professors of being someone who is not a serious scholar— someone who chooses to entertain rather than to educate. And for that reason, TV professors may not be invited to important conferences—important meetings to discuss their academic work. They may even have difficulty getting money to do research. So for professors, being a TV celebrity has important disadvantages. A second point is that being on TV can take a lot of a professor’s time—not just the time on TV but also time figuring out what to present and time spent rehearsing, travel time, even time getting made up to look good for the cameras. And all this time comes out of the time the professor can spend doing research, meeting with students, and attending to university business. So you can certainly see there are problems for the university and its students when professors are in the TV studio and not on campus. So who does benefit? The public? That’s not so clear either. Look, professors do have a lot of knowledge to offer, but TV networks don’t want really serious in-depth academic lectures for after-dinner viewing. What the networks want is the academic title, not the intellectual substance. The material that professors usually present on TV—such as background on current events, or some brief historical introduction to a new movie version of a great literary work—this material is not much different from what viewers would get from a TV reporter who had done a little homework.
The lecturer challenges the topic proposed in the reading that several possible causes could contribute to the little ice age, because argument are little out of date. And new information presumes that none of the ideas could account for the little ice age.
First, the article suggests that the cooling may have been caused by disrupting of ocean currents. However, the professor points out that the cause could only explain cooling in North america and Europe. Whereas the cooling are located in new Zealand and South america, where the disrupting of ocean currents cannot explain.
Second, the essay supposes that volcanic eruption could have caused the little ice age. But the lecturer considers that volcanic atmosphere should cause visual effect which could be noticed by people, such as the sun is gray or brown instead of white during sunset. On the contrary, no report routinely describe these happens. So the volcanic eruption is not strong enough to lower the global temperature.
Third, the passage indicates that substantial decreases in human populations may have contributed indirectly to the cooling of the climate. Nevertheless, the professor argues that there is no enough time for this cause to work. instead, forest trees must be cut down again to clean the field quickly. Whereas, forest mentioned in the reading does not achieve long time for absorbing carbon dioxide to cause cooling.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 229, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Instead
... no enough time for this cause to work. instead, forest trees must be cut down again to...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, may, nevertheless, second, so, third, whereas, such as, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 10.4613686534 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 5.04856512141 198% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 10.0 22.412803532 45% => OK
Preposition: 23.0 30.3222958057 76% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1187.0 1373.03311258 86% => OK
No of words: 227.0 270.72406181 84% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.22907488987 5.08290768461 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.88156143495 4.04702891845 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.4645992477 2.5805825403 96% => OK
Unique words: 138.0 145.348785872 95% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.607929515419 0.540411800872 112% => OK
syllable_count: 367.2 419.366225166 88% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 0.0 3.25607064018 0% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.23620309051 73% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => 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: 17.0 21.2450331126 80% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 34.2287812733 49.2860985944 69% => OK
Chars per sentence: 91.3076923077 110.228320801 83% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.4615384615 21.698381199 80% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.07692307692 7.06452816374 100% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 4.33554083885 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => OK
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: 0.0163099656779 0.272083759551 6% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.00541229088468 0.0996497079465 5% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.00999948448459 0.0662205650399 15% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.010126493357 0.162205337803 6% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0059157366674 0.0443174109184 13% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.9 13.3589403974 89% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 54.22 53.8541721854 101% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.0289183223 90% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.76 12.2367328918 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.93 8.42419426049 106% => OK
difficult_words: 64.0 63.6247240618 101% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.498013245 84% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 3.33333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.