Summarise the points made in the lecture, being sure to explain how they case doubt on specific points made in the reading passage.
The article states that communal online encyclopedias have many important problems and it is less valuable than traditional printed encyclopedias and provides three reasons of support. However, the professor explains that online encyclopedias is more reliable and refutes each of the author's reasons.
First, the reading states that online encyclopedia are inaccurate in many cases as the contributors don't have academic credential. The professor refute this points. She says that earrors are hardly going to affect. She explins that if the error was found in online encyclopedia it is easy to fix then traditional encyclopedia beacuse in traditional encyclopedia eroors remains uncorrected for decades.
Second, the article claims that online encyclopedias gives an oppertunity to unscrupulous users and vandals or hackers to fabricate, delete, and corrupt information in the encyclopedia. However the professor explains that there were a special people they work only to look fr this articles. They will make sure that crucial fact and formate of the article won't change by any online users, so there is no chance that anyone can change and second ther were special adititors those only can chage the article. So infrormation found on online is reliable.
Third, the readind clamis that communal encyclopedias focus mainly on the popular topics which creates a false impression of what is important and what is not. Professor explains that traditional encyclopedia have limited space and the group of acdemic experts only decide wht to include and exclude in the article and these group don't have varity of interest. Instated in the online encyclopedia offers great varity of deversity regardind the topic which is strogest advatange of onlile encyclopedia according to the professor.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 101, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...urate in many cases as the contributors dont have academic credential. The professor...
^^^^
Line 5, column 146, Rule ID: MASS_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Possible agreement error - use third-person verb forms for singular and mass nouns: 'refutes'.
Suggestion: refutes
...have academic credential. The professor refute this points. She says that earrors are ...
^^^^^^
Line 9, column 119, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...nscrupulous users and vandals or hackers to fabricate, delete, and corrupt inform...
^^
Line 9, column 188, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: However,
...orrupt information in the encyclopedia. However the professor explains that there were ...
^^^^^^^
Line 13, column 228, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ditional encyclopedia have limited space and the group of acdemic experts only de...
^^
Line 13, column 333, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
... exclude in the article and these group dont have varity of interest. Instated in th...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, if, look, second, so, then, third, in many cases
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 10.4613686534 124% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 5.04856512141 59% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 7.30242825607 164% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 12.0772626932 108% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 22.412803532 94% => OK
Preposition: 24.0 30.3222958057 79% => OK
Nominalization: 2.0 5.01324503311 40% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1529.0 1373.03311258 111% => OK
No of words: 276.0 270.72406181 102% => OK
Chars per words: 5.53985507246 5.08290768461 109% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.07593519647 4.04702891845 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.92579586668 2.5805825403 113% => OK
Unique words: 157.0 145.348785872 108% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.56884057971 0.540411800872 105% => OK
syllable_count: 493.2 419.366225166 118% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.55342163355 116% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.23620309051 73% => 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: 21.0 21.2450331126 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 60.3840764307 49.2860985944 123% => OK
Chars per sentence: 117.615384615 110.228320801 107% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.2307692308 21.698381199 98% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.30769230769 7.06452816374 75% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 4.19205298013 143% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 4.33554083885 161% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 0.0 4.45695364238 0% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.27373068433 140% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0429957624766 0.272083759551 16% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0179302234154 0.0996497079465 18% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0251880431495 0.0662205650399 38% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0279759975981 0.162205337803 17% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0143645886091 0.0443174109184 32% => 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: 15.3 13.3589403974 115% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 33.24 53.8541721854 62% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 5.55761589404 202% => Smog_index is high.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 11.0289183223 125% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.85 12.2367328918 121% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.37 8.42419426049 111% => OK
difficult_words: 82.0 63.6247240618 129% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.498013245 99% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => 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.