The article posits that the professors who appear as guests on television have great benefits and provides three reasons of support. However, the lecturer illustrates that professors will not get any benefits by doing T.V programs and refutes each of the author's reasons .
First, reading claims that these appearances on television increase reputation of the professor. On the contrary, the lecturer states it might not be good for the professor on the professional basis. These appearances indicate a lack of seriousness, lower inclination toward scholarly work and predilection towards entertainment. This can cause professor lower funding for the research work.
In addition, writer claims that television appearances help to get positive publicity, higher donation and increased applications of students to the university.The professor denies this point by saying that time consumption of professor in these activities should be less. According to the lecturer, the more time professor gives to these appearances, the lower time he can give to research work, respective students, and the university academics. Ultimately, it is not beneficial for university and students.
Finally, author says that public gains knowledge and insight from the real expert from the university.However,the lecturer contends that the content which is shown on the television doesn't have depth and seriousness. It is just brief data and background related to the area which professor indicates. In addition to this, normal television reporter with little homework can explain this information without the need of professor from university.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 221, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: V
...rs will not get any benefits by doing T.V programs and refutes each of the author...
^
Line 1, column 271, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Don't put a space before the full stop
Suggestion: .
... and refutes each of the authors reasons . First, reading claims that these appea...
^^
Line 3, column 160, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: The
...lications of students to the university.The professor denies this point by saying t...
^^^
Line 4, column 34, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'gains'' or 'gain's'?
Suggestion: gains'; gain's
...ents. Finally, author says that public gains knowledge and insight from the real exp...
^^^^^
Line 4, column 102, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: However
...rom the real expert from the university.However,the lecturer contends that the content ...
^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 109, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma
Suggestion: , the
... real expert from the university.However,the lecturer contends that the content whic...
^^^^
Line 4, column 182, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...ontent which is shown on the television doesnt have depth and seriousness. It is just ...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, first, however, so, in addition, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 5.0 10.4613686534 48% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 5.04856512141 139% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 19.0 22.412803532 85% => OK
Preposition: 29.0 30.3222958057 96% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 5.01324503311 180% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1388.0 1373.03311258 101% => OK
No of words: 242.0 270.72406181 89% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.73553719008 5.08290768461 113% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.94415379849 4.04702891845 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.19056128003 2.5805825403 124% => OK
Unique words: 145.0 145.348785872 100% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.599173553719 0.540411800872 111% => OK
syllable_count: 421.2 419.366225166 100% => 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: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 60.0339602966 49.2860985944 122% => OK
Chars per sentence: 115.666666667 110.228320801 105% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.1666666667 21.698381199 93% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.75 7.06452816374 67% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 7.0 4.19205298013 167% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => 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: 0.0921736192842 0.272083759551 34% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0392229595572 0.0996497079465 39% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0240039550801 0.0662205650399 36% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0595303773755 0.162205337803 37% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.00994451853073 0.0443174109184 22% => 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: 15.7 13.3589403974 118% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 42.72 53.8541721854 79% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 5.55761589404 202% => Smog_index is high.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 11.0289183223 112% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.01 12.2367328918 131% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.46 8.42419426049 112% => OK
difficult_words: 74.0 63.6247240618 116% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 10.7273730684 84% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => OK
text_standard: 16.0 11.2008830022 143% => 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.