A recent study reveals that people, especially young people, are reading far less literature—novels, plays, and poems—than they used to. This is troubling because the trend has unfortunate effects for the reading public, for culture in general, and for the future of literature itself.
While there has been a decline in book reading generally, the decline has been especially sharp for literature. This is unfortunate because nothing else provides the intellectual stimulation that literature does. Literature encourages us to exercise our imaginations, empathize with others, and expand our understanding of language. So by reading less literature, the reading public is missing out on important benefits.
Unfortunately, missing out on the benefits of literature is not the only problem. What are people reading instead? Consider the prevalence of self-help books on lists of best sellers. These are usually superficial, poorly written, and intellectually undemanding. Additionally, instead of sitting down with a challenging novel, many persons are now more likely to turn on the television, watch a music video, or read a Web page. Clearly, diverting time previously spent in reading literature to trivial forms of entertainment has lowered the level of culture in general.
The trend of reading less literature is all the more regrettable because it is taking place during a period when good literature is being written. There are many talented writers today, but they lack an audience. This fact is bound to lead publishers to invest less in literature and so support fewer serious writers. Thus, the writing as well as the reading of literature is likely to decline because of the poor standards of today's readers.
The article states that people are reading less literature, creating multiple unfortunate effects and gives three reasons of support. However, the professor explains that this claim is not true and refutes each of the author's reasons.
First, the reading states that there was a decline in literature book reading, creating an unfortunate effect because nothing else could provide the same intellectual stimulation. The professor opposes this point by saying that people do not have just literature to be intellectual stimulated. She explains that there are a lot of different sources, such as scientific and politic books which have very high quality. Also, she states that people cannot be considered creative just because they are not reading books.
Second, the article claims that the culture in general has lowered its level because people are spending their time on trivial forms of entertainment instead of reading literature. However, the professor contends that it not true that culture is in decline. Nowadays people are watching more movies and listening to music and they are not wasting their time doing it. The culture is always changing and new forms of expression different from literature are being created every day.
Third, the reading avers that we are in a period when good literature is being written, but they lack an audience. Conversely, the lecture refutes this point by stating that she do not blame readers for giving less support to modern literature. Although, the professor explains that it is the author's fault because today's literature are very difficult to understand.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 294, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
..., the professor explains that it is the authors fault because todays literature are ver...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, conversely, first, however, if, second, so, third, in general, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 10.4613686534 182% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 5.04856512141 40% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 12.0772626932 116% => OK
Pronoun: 28.0 22.412803532 125% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 18.0 30.3222958057 59% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 3.0 5.01324503311 60% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1358.0 1373.03311258 99% => OK
No of words: 255.0 270.72406181 94% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.32549019608 5.08290768461 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.99608801488 4.04702891845 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.62359682202 2.5805825403 102% => OK
Unique words: 141.0 145.348785872 97% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.552941176471 0.540411800872 102% => OK
syllable_count: 420.3 419.366225166 100% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => 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: 0.0 2.5761589404 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 28.1584695657 49.2860985944 57% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 104.461538462 110.228320801 95% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.6153846154 21.698381199 90% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.23076923077 7.06452816374 88% => 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 : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => 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: 0.194212836288 0.272083759551 71% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0682194395142 0.0996497079465 68% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0402522212145 0.0662205650399 61% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.122473775944 0.162205337803 76% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0167985788111 0.0443174109184 38% => 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: 13.5 13.3589403974 101% => 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: 13.63 12.2367328918 111% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.42 8.42419426049 100% => OK
difficult_words: 62.0 63.6247240618 97% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 10.7273730684 112% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.2008830022 125% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 76.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.0 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.