The reading claims that online encyclopedias aren't as productive as the traditional ones and brings three reasons of support. However, the professor disagrees with the idea by saying that the article is totally ignorant of the advancement of online encyclopedias, and refutes all the article's reasons.
First of all, the article states that online encyclopedias aren't reliable enough since they are provided by a vast number of users who don't necessarily have the requisite academic knowledge about the subjects. The professor challenges this reason by mentioning that traditional encyclopedias are far less accurate than the online ones despite the fact that they are organized by experts. She also believes that no source of information can be without flaws both in online and printed versions.
Secondly, the article posits that the information in online types might get changed by hackers who might be motivated to delete or corrupt the articles in encyclopedias. The professor refutes this by explaining that some crucial aspects of each article are in the reading format, which means the users can not change them. Additionally, she informs us of some specialists who continuously review the changes made by users and modify the incorrect ones. This procedure of checking the errors is an advantage to the printed versions which might maintain the mistakes for decades.
Third, the article believes that since in online encyclopedias, unlike the traditional types, each subject is fully described with total details and focus, users would not be able to understand the importance of the topics properly. The professor disagrees with the reason by positing that traditional encyclopedias need to be abstract about some fields because of the insufficiency of space. However, in online encyclopedias, space is unlimited, and there are plenty of articles suitable to the diversity of users' interest. She believes that this variety of articles about different fields of study is the online encyclopedias' most significant advantage.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 46, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: aren't
...eading claims that online encyclopedias arent as productive as the traditional ones a...
^^^^^
Line 2, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... and refutes all the articles reasons. First of all, the article states that on...
^^^
Line 3, column 60, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: aren't
...rticle states that online encyclopedias arent reliable enough since they are provided...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 136, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
... provided by a vast number of users who dont necessarily have the requisite academic...
^^^^
Line 4, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...s both in online and printed versions. Secondly, the article posits that the in...
^^^
Line 6, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ght maintain the mistakes for decades. Third, the article believes that since i...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, however, if, second, secondly, so, third, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 10.4613686534 134% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 5.04856512141 139% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 12.0772626932 132% => OK
Pronoun: 22.0 22.412803532 98% => OK
Preposition: 45.0 30.3222958057 148% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1726.0 1373.03311258 126% => OK
No of words: 316.0 270.72406181 117% => OK
Chars per words: 5.46202531646 5.08290768461 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.21620550194 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.95813468381 2.5805825403 115% => OK
Unique words: 162.0 145.348785872 111% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.512658227848 0.540411800872 95% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 552.6 419.366225166 132% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
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: 24.0 21.2450331126 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 35.2874921267 49.2860985944 72% => OK
Chars per sentence: 132.769230769 110.228320801 120% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.3076923077 21.698381199 112% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.15384615385 7.06452816374 73% => 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 : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.27373068433 47% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.141619523277 0.272083759551 52% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0605593884169 0.0996497079465 61% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0439581336596 0.0662205650399 66% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.102937495411 0.162205337803 63% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0477130182964 0.0443174109184 108% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.4 13.3589403974 123% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 38.66 53.8541721854 72% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 5.55761589404 202% => Smog_index is high.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 11.0289183223 125% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.68 12.2367328918 120% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.12 8.42419426049 108% => OK
difficult_words: 86.0 63.6247240618 135% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.0 10.7273730684 140% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 10.498013245 110% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.2008830022 134% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.0 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.