TPO 06
differences between online and traditional encyclopedias.
online ones' information are inaccurate
hackers can hack them easily
they do not have enough space so the focus is more on popular unimportant ideas.
The article posits that online encyclopedias' disadvantages outweight their advantages comparing with traditional ones, which make them less beneficial; however the professor thoroughly overthrows all of the opinions of the author. She provides three mutually exclusive hypotheses. In the following, the rationale behind her suggestions will be elaborated by the most outstanding, solid proofs.
First, the reading states that the information of online encyclopedias are mostly inaccurate for their writers are not well educated. On the other hand, the lecturer rejects this idea since she claims that both online and traditional encyclopedias are prone to mistakes, but the erros in online ones are exactly easier to be corrected. Conversely, the errors in traditional ones may remain for decades.
Second, the passage upholds that hackers can hack the information in these new encyclopedias in order to mislead and misinform the audiences. In contrast, the teacher asserts that highly important information in online ones are introduced in a special format called "read-only"; therefore the readers are not able to change the data in them. Furthermore, there are numerous seasoned editors who are always monitoring these online books so as to select approved changes and reject disapproved ones.
Third, the author claims that the focus of these online books are on more popular stories and ideas insomuch as their space are limited, so people cannot distinguish whether a specific idea is important or not. Nonetheless, the professor does not acknowledge that inasmuch as she asserts that online encyclopedias have a preponderance of free spaces and there are judges who decide to put which information in them. Thus, these books can have different diversities of topics, which is considered as one of the strongest pros of these books.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 197, Rule ID: ALL_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'all the'.
Suggestion: all the
...ver the professor thoroughly overthrows all of the opinions of the author. She provides th...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 447, Rule ID: SO_AS_TO[1]
Message: Use simply 'to'
Suggestion: to
...re always monitoring these online books so as to select approved changes and reject disa...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, conversely, first, furthermore, however, if, may, nonetheless, second, so, therefore, third, thus, well, as to, in contrast, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 10.4613686534 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 12.0772626932 108% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 22.412803532 107% => OK
Preposition: 30.0 30.3222958057 99% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1580.0 1373.03311258 115% => OK
No of words: 284.0 270.72406181 105% => OK
Chars per words: 5.56338028169 5.08290768461 109% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.10515524023 4.04702891845 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.11685558414 2.5805825403 121% => OK
Unique words: 168.0 145.348785872 116% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.591549295775 0.540411800872 109% => OK
syllable_count: 504.0 419.366225166 120% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.55342163355 116% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 21.2450331126 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 56.7697591641 49.2860985944 115% => OK
Chars per sentence: 131.666666667 110.228320801 119% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.6666666667 21.698381199 109% => OK
Discourse Markers: 12.25 7.06452816374 173% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 4.33554083885 208% => Less positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 4.45695364238 45% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.268289348979 0.272083759551 99% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0867649822521 0.0996497079465 87% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0476095305142 0.0662205650399 72% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.152135074492 0.162205337803 94% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0559137168082 0.0443174109184 126% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.6 13.3589403974 124% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 31.21 53.8541721854 58% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 11.2 5.55761589404 202% => Smog_index is high.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.6 11.0289183223 132% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.26 12.2367328918 125% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.67 8.42419426049 115% => OK
difficult_words: 88.0 63.6247240618 138% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 10.7273730684 121% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.498013245 107% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.2008830022 134% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 88.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 26.5 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.