The reading states that traditional paper-based medical record can be replaced by electronic records and provides three reasons of support. However, the professor refutes this idea and opposes each of the reading statements.
First, the paper mentions that electronic records would cut extra expenses considering storage and transfering. The professor cast doubt on this idea by providing an important issue. She says that for back up data, it is obligatory to keep paper-based records. Hence, the aforementioned benefit is not really practical and a lot of spaces would be needed too.
Second, the passage asserts that electronic records would decrease humans' fault. Accordngly, illegible handwriting is one of the most important error. Nevertheless, the lecturer repudiates this point. She states that eliminating paper-based record would not lead to appropriate handwriting in electronic sources. Indeed, usually stuff at the end of the office hours do record their electronic versions through electronic pens. This is what we should consider as a fact that handwriting wont get improved.
Third, the articel mentions that electronic databases would help researcher significantly to have access to a pool of records. Therefore, that provide a lot of opportunity for medical researchers. Nonetheless, the professor rebuts this point. She states that there are also some types of difficulties to have acces to electronic versions. Actually, strict privacy law prohibit way of acces to such a ducumentary. Also, accesibility of these data are in the hands of patients and their permision are required.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, first, hence, however, if, nevertheless, nonetheless, really, second, so, therefore, third
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 10.4613686534 86% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 5.04856512141 139% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 12.0772626932 75% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 22.0 22.412803532 98% => OK
Preposition: 27.0 30.3222958057 89% => OK
Nominalization: 0.0 5.01324503311 0% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1369.0 1373.03311258 100% => OK
No of words: 244.0 270.72406181 90% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.6106557377 5.08290768461 110% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.95227774224 4.04702891845 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.04495509742 2.5805825403 118% => OK
Unique words: 149.0 145.348785872 103% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.610655737705 0.540411800872 113% => 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: 6.0 3.25607064018 184% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 0.0 2.5761589404 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 13.0662251656 138% => OK
Sentence length: 13.0 21.2450331126 61% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 24.5950537033 49.2860985944 50% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 76.0555555556 110.228320801 69% => OK
Words per sentence: 13.5555555556 21.698381199 62% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.16666666667 7.06452816374 87% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.27373068433 187% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.402183333935 0.272083759551 148% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.105675601225 0.0996497079465 106% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.107794055929 0.0662205650399 163% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.236300274936 0.162205337803 146% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0504234662498 0.0443174109184 114% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.8 13.3589403974 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 49.82 53.8541721854 93% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 11.0289183223 86% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.67 12.2367328918 120% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.01 8.42419426049 107% => OK
difficult_words: 73.0 63.6247240618 115% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 10.7273730684 70% => OK
gunning_fog: 7.2 10.498013245 69% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 86.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 26.0 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.