TPO 19
The reading and the lecture are both about the commercial advertisement which are used as new tactic called " buzzing". The reading passage claims three reasons that critics see buzzing as controversy. As opposed to, the lecturer who counters-argues that viewpoint, trying to prove that these three reasons do not seem convincing.
First and foremost, the writer mentions that customers should know if the person who does the advertisement of the product is being paid to price a product. By knowing that would make a big difference because we accept the truth from these people. But with buzzing what we hear is paid. Therefore, misleading could be there for us. On the contrary, the professor cannot disagree more, reasoning that that is why we should believe that the buzzer is telling us the truth because he is getting paid by the company to give us the right info about product.
The second argument the author gives is that since buzzers pretend they are just private, consumers listen to their endorsement less critically than they should. That could really harm consumers because they should ask questions. However, the lecturer cannot be more outraged, explaining that these people buzzers are there to answer customers questions, so they can get more information about the product. If buzzers do not know how to answer than that would be a problem for both the company who hire buzzers and the customers.
Lastly, on one hand, the passage points out that buzzers could be less trustful because of their hidden agenda. That would be a harmful effect on social relationship. As a result, they will spread mistrust and dishonesty. Nevertheless, the professor declares that it is not true because buzzers are those people who by explaining and giving the right information of the product would be loved from people and people would see them as friends that try to help them by answering their questions.
In conclusion, although, the text suggests three reasons in supporting the critic's opinion about the buzzers, the lecturer believe that none of them are persuasive.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 10, column 76, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'critics'' or 'critic's'?
Suggestion: critics'; critic's
...uggests three reasons in supporting the critics opinion about the buzzers, the lecturer...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, if, lastly, nevertheless, really, second, so, therefore, in conclusion, as a result, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 10.4613686534 191% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 5.04856512141 317% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 22.0 12.0772626932 182% => OK
Pronoun: 40.0 22.412803532 178% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 30.0 30.3222958057 99% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 5.01324503311 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1761.0 1373.03311258 128% => OK
No of words: 344.0 270.72406181 127% => OK
Chars per words: 5.11918604651 5.08290768461 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.30665032142 4.04702891845 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.66869806545 2.5805825403 103% => OK
Unique words: 176.0 145.348785872 121% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.511627906977 0.540411800872 95% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 511.2 419.366225166 122% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.25165562914 240% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 13.0662251656 130% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 63.004311381 49.2860985944 128% => OK
Chars per sentence: 103.588235294 110.228320801 94% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.2352941176 21.698381199 93% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.11764705882 7.06452816374 101% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.27373068433 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.478433037028 0.272083759551 176% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.153077087476 0.0996497079465 154% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0678395235757 0.0662205650399 102% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.224495917598 0.162205337803 138% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.126324931072 0.0443174109184 285% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.8 13.3589403974 96% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 59.64 53.8541721854 111% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.0289183223 90% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.42 12.2367328918 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.89 8.42419426049 94% => OK
difficult_words: 71.0 63.6247240618 112% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
Rates: 78.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.5 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.