The reading passage discusses an interesting topic about the use of buzzers, people who promote products to people without telling them that they are being hired by a company for that job, and how controversial the use of buzzer by company is. The article provides three reasons for support to ban this activity according to the critics. However, the lecture, a buzzer himself, contradicts each of the points exposed by the article and defends his part-time job with his own arguments.
First, the reading passage makes echo of the critics by sustaining that the buzzers should be open to people about their intentions when praising a product. Otherwise, buzzers are being dishonest with consumers. Challenging this point, the lecture explains that buzzers are actually people that have used the product before and that they are convinced that the products are really good; that is the motive the company hires them. Thus, buzzer really believes that what they are praising are really good.
Secondly, the reading passage claims that people are not on guard when receive the information the buzzers brings them; in consequence, the consumers could believe everything that it is said. On the opposite, the lecture, argues that people always ask many questions regarding all aspect of the product that are being promoted. Considering that, people are not out of guard.
Finally, the article elaborates the idea that buzzers are affecting negatively social relationship when a dishonest activity is behind the buzzer job. On the contrary, the lecture remarks that the buzzers only praise product they really believe are good for people and for that reason they should be trusted more than anyone.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 284, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'peopled'.
Suggestion: peopled
...ture explains that buzzers are actually people that have used the product before and t...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, finally, first, however, really, regarding, second, secondly, so, thus, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 10.4613686534 201% => Less to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 5.04856512141 59% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 7.30242825607 55% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 21.0 12.0772626932 174% => OK
Pronoun: 32.0 22.412803532 143% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 28.0 30.3222958057 92% => OK
Nominalization: 2.0 5.01324503311 40% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1429.0 1373.03311258 104% => OK
No of words: 274.0 270.72406181 101% => OK
Chars per words: 5.21532846715 5.08290768461 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.0685311056 4.04702891845 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.4827418592 2.5805825403 96% => OK
Unique words: 145.0 145.348785872 100% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.529197080292 0.540411800872 98% => OK
syllable_count: 434.7 419.366225166 104% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 3.25607064018 31% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => 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: 22.0 21.2450331126 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 60.3150870199 49.2860985944 122% => OK
Chars per sentence: 119.083333333 110.228320801 108% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.8333333333 21.698381199 105% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.08333333333 7.06452816374 114% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => 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: 0.353397616873 0.272083759551 130% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.136744074099 0.0996497079465 137% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0789489059097 0.0662205650399 119% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.228613357099 0.162205337803 141% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0629581549911 0.0443174109184 142% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.6 13.3589403974 109% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 53.8541721854 91% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 11.0289183223 108% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.29 12.2367328918 109% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.53 8.42419426049 101% => OK
difficult_words: 66.0 63.6247240618 104% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 10.7273730684 126% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.498013245 103% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.2008830022 125% => 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.