TPO 46
The reading and the lecturer are both about that patients' information has been recorded and stored electronically instead of on paper forms. The author of the reading feels that this activity has enormous advantages over traditional paper-based. The lecturer challenges the claim made by the author. He says that these advantages are uncertain.
To begin with, the reading claims that electronic records can decrease costs by saving money on storing and transferring medical records. In the article, it is said that paper records need a significant amount of storage space, and doctors can easily access to the patients' data. This specific argument is challenged by the lecturer. He argues that doctors do not throw out their notes, and prescriptions from their patients. Additionally, she says they keep information for the emergency.
Secondly, the author states that electronic medical records are important for reducing the chances of medical errors. It is said that illegible handwriting, insufficient transcription of data, and nonstandard organization of paper records have caused so many errors in many cases that were related to the patients' health. The lecturer, however, rebuts on this by mentioning that doctors take note from their patients, after that they give it to another person to put it in an especial electronic file which is related to that patient. In this way, doctors prevent themselves from any errors.
Finally, the author posits that these electronic medical records are useful for medical research. The reading states that it is not possible to give all of the information about the patients by the paper records. In contrast, the lecturer's position is that using patients' data is difficult, and it is relevant to privacy law in the United States of America. She says that researchers need the allowance of the patient. For example, they maybe do not like to use their information for specific research.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 50, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'patients'' or 'patient's'?
Suggestion: patients'; patient's
...ng and the lecturer are both about that patients information has been recorded and store...
^^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 247, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...dvantages over traditional paper-based. The lecturer challenges the claim made by t...
^^^
Line 3, column 266, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'patients'' or 'patient's'?
Suggestion: patients'; patient's
...e, and doctors can easily access to the patients data. This specific argument is challen...
^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 306, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'patients'' or 'patient's'?
Suggestion: patients'; patient's
... in many cases that were related to the patients health. The lecturer, however, rebuts o...
^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 150, Rule ID: ALL_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'all the'.
Suggestion: all the
... states that it is not possible to give all of the information about the patients by the p...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, for example, in contrast, in many cases, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 10.4613686534 134% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 12.0772626932 141% => OK
Pronoun: 40.0 22.412803532 178% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 42.0 30.3222958057 139% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 5.01324503311 180% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1630.0 1373.03311258 119% => OK
No of words: 309.0 270.72406181 114% => OK
Chars per words: 5.27508090615 5.08290768461 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.1926597562 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.82230336017 2.5805825403 109% => OK
Unique words: 154.0 145.348785872 106% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.498381877023 0.540411800872 92% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 504.0 419.366225166 120% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 3.25607064018 246% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.51434878587 264% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 13.0662251656 138% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 21.2450331126 80% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 48.5232539391 49.2860985944 98% => OK
Chars per sentence: 90.5555555556 110.228320801 82% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.1666666667 21.698381199 79% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.0 7.06452816374 85% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 4.19205298013 119% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 4.33554083885 161% => 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: 0.532043805141 0.272083759551 196% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.153344197059 0.0996497079465 154% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.13652161696 0.0662205650399 206% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.332781796772 0.162205337803 205% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0765084962387 0.0443174109184 173% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.0 13.3589403974 90% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 54.22 53.8541721854 101% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.0289183223 90% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.05 12.2367328918 107% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.52 8.42419426049 101% => OK
difficult_words: 79.0 63.6247240618 124% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 10.7273730684 84% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.498013245 84% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 60.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 18.0 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.