Summarize the points made in the lecture, being sure to explain how they cast doubt
on specific points made in the reading passage.
Critics say that current voting systems used in the United States are inefficient and often lead to
the inaccurate counting of votes. Miscounts can be especially damaging if an election is closely
contested. Those critics would like the traditional systems to be replaced with far more efficient
and trustworthy computerized voting systems.
In traditional voting, one major source of inaccuracy is that people accidentally vote for the
wrong candidate. Voters usually have to find the name of their candidate on a large sheet of
paper containing many names—the ballot—and make a small mark next to that name. People
with poor eyesight can easily mark the wrong name. The computerized voting machines have an
easy-to-use touch-screen technology: to cast a vote, a voter needs only to touch the candidate’s
name on the screen to record a vote for that candidate; voters can even have the computer
magnify the name for easier viewing.
Another major problem with old voting systems is that they rely heavily on people to count the
votes. Officials must often count up the votes one by one, going through every ballot and
recording the vote. Since they have to deal with thousands of ballots, it is almost inevitable that
they will make mistakes. If an error is detected, a long and expensive recount has to take place.
In contrast, computerized systems remove the possibility of human error, since all the vote
counting is done quickly and automatically by the computers.
Finally some people say it is too risky to implement complicated voting technology nationwide.
But without giving it a thought, governments and individuals alike trust other complex computer
technology every day to be perfectly accurate in banking transactions as well as in the
communication of highly sensitive information.
Directions: Here is the transcript.
Narrator Now listen to part of a lecture on the topic you just read about.
Professor While traditional voting systems have some problems, it’s doubtful that
computerized voting will make the situation any better. Computerized voting may
seem easy for people who are used to computers. But what about people who
aren’t? People who can’t afford computers, people who don’t use them on a
regular basis—these people will have trouble using computerized voting
machines. These voters can easily cast the wrong vote or be discouraged from
voting altogether because of fear of technology. Furthermore, it’s true that
humans make mistakes when they count up ballots by hand. But are we sure that
computers will do a better job? After all, computers are programmed by humans,
so “human error” can show up in mistakes in their programs. And the errors
caused by these defective programs may be far more serious. The worst a human
official can do is miss a few ballots. But an error in a computer program can result
in thousands of votes being miscounted or even permanently removed from the
record. And in many voting systems, there is no physical record of the votes, so a
computer recount in the case of a suspected error is impossible! As for our trust of
computer technology for banking and communications, remember one thing:
these systems are used daily and they are used heavily. They didn’t work
flawlessly when they were first introduced. They had to be improved on and
improved on until they got as reliable as they are today. But voting happens only
once every two years nationally in the United States and not much more than
twice a year in many local areas. This is hardly sufficient for us to develop
confidence that computerized voting can be fully trusted.
Many critics complained about the inefficient of the United States’ voting system, as they recommend the traditional systems to be replaced with the more efficient and trustworthy computerized voting system. However, there are doubts about the risk of using the modern computer system among many citizens of the United States.
First of all, computer voting is uneasy to use by the people who are not familiar with brand new technology. While some voters can easily cast a vote by only go through simple steps, others can accidentally cast wrong candidates. Some voters’ confusion would lead to wrong votes. Also, some balloters are discouraged from the fear of technology.
Secondly, computer data is not always accurate. Computers are programmed by humans. Humans can imperfectly make error programs. As a result, this would cause in thousand miscounts. Even though the old voting system might be ineffective, the voting office can only miss a few ballots compare to the novel system. Moreover, there is no physical record of the vote created by computers.
Lastly, despite complex technology is perfectly accurate in banking transactions, it has been developing through many years, from flaw calculating computers. Unlike in banking transactions, voting only happens nationally every two years in the United States and twice a year in some particular states.
In conclusion, even though the computer voting system is efficient in nowadays, some disadvantages need to be solved before official use it.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 161, Rule ID: NODT_DOZEN[1]
Message: Use simply: 'a thousand'.
Suggestion: a thousand
...grams. As a result, this would cause in thousand miscounts. Even though the old voting s...
^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 68, Rule ID: IN_NOWADAYS[1]
Message: nowadays is used without 'in'. Use simply: 'nowadays'.
Suggestion: nowadays
...the computer voting system is efficient in nowadays, some disadvantages need to be solved b...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, however, lastly, moreover, second, secondly, so, while, in conclusion, as a result, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 10.4613686534 124% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 5.04856512141 158% => OK
Conjunction : 2.0 7.30242825607 27% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 1.0 12.0772626932 8% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 4.0 22.412803532 18% => OK
Preposition: 33.0 30.3222958057 109% => OK
Nominalization: 0.0 5.01324503311 0% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1276.0 1373.03311258 93% => OK
No of words: 236.0 270.72406181 87% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.40677966102 5.08290768461 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.91947592106 4.04702891845 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.83380504266 2.5805825403 110% => OK
Unique words: 146.0 145.348785872 100% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.618644067797 0.540411800872 114% => OK
syllable_count: 405.0 419.366225166 97% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 1.0 8.23620309051 12% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 1.25165562914 399% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 15.0 21.2450331126 71% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 49.8751329711 49.2860985944 101% => OK
Chars per sentence: 85.0666666667 110.228320801 77% => OK
Words per sentence: 15.7333333333 21.698381199 73% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.26666666667 7.06452816374 103% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => 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: 0.1831915274 0.272083759551 67% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0523361594562 0.0996497079465 53% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0611040299156 0.0662205650399 92% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.102583129986 0.162205337803 63% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0645187075447 0.0443174109184 146% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.9 13.3589403974 89% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 47.79 53.8541721854 89% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 11.0289183223 93% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.8 12.2367328918 113% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.53 8.42419426049 113% => OK
difficult_words: 77.0 63.6247240618 121% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.0 10.498013245 76% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 90.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 27.0 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.