The reading passage and the lecture are both about the electronic medical record systems in which the patients' information is kept in databases instead of on paper. More specifically, the writer discusses the advantages of these electronic records in comparison with the traditional ways. The lecturer in the listening passage disagrees. She believes that there is inaccuracy in the mentioned benefits and provides some evidence to refute all of them.
First of all, the author begins by stating that the electronic archive gives rise to a decrease in the expenses related to the storage and conveying the medical data. The lecturer, however, disagrees. She declares that in spite of improving the ways of preserving the medical histories in electronic databases, the doctors tend to keep a paper back up from the patients' documents in emergency situations. Therefore, they already have paid the cost of this records protection.
Furthermore, the article mentioned that electronic medical records are a safe approach to inhibit human faults to some considerable extent. Again, the professor in the listening passage believes there are flaws in the writer's argument. The speaker holds that this attitude will not eliminate the doctors' errors as long as they still are utilizing note-taking to record the medical information, and then convert them into the electronic records.
Lastly, the article mentions that this avenue for recording medical documents might contribute to medical investigations in order to accumulate a massive amount of information simultaneously. In turn, the lecturer is doubtful that this is accurate. She states that the researcher will not necessarily take benefits from this opportunity. She says that there is patient privacy law in the United States which restrict the access into patients' medical history. Thus, they need to get the upper-level permissions in order to reach these documents.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 103, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'patients'' or 'patient's'?
Suggestion: patients'; patient's
...nic medical record systems in which the patients information is kept in databases instea...
^^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 456, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'records'' or 'record's'?
Suggestion: records'; record's
...they already have paid the cost of this records protection. Furthermore, the article m...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 218, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'writers'' or 'writer's'?
Suggestion: writers'; writer's
...passage believes there are flaws in the writers argument. The speaker holds that this a...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, furthermore, however, if, lastly, so, still, then, therefore, thus, first of all, in spite of
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 10.4613686534 86% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 7.30242825607 55% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 25.0 22.412803532 112% => OK
Preposition: 42.0 30.3222958057 139% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1626.0 1373.03311258 118% => OK
No of words: 298.0 270.72406181 110% => OK
Chars per words: 5.45637583893 5.08290768461 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.15483772266 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.91794298156 2.5805825403 113% => OK
Unique words: 162.0 145.348785872 111% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.543624161074 0.540411800872 101% => OK
syllable_count: 523.8 419.366225166 125% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.55342163355 116% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 3.25607064018 184% => 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: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 13.0662251656 122% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 53.8213189638 49.2860985944 109% => OK
Chars per sentence: 101.625 110.228320801 92% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.625 21.698381199 86% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.5625 7.06452816374 93% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.27373068433 94% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.462308049872 0.272083759551 170% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.12686227275 0.0996497079465 127% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.112165702001 0.0662205650399 169% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.283252357256 0.162205337803 175% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0403387583147 0.0443174109184 91% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.6 13.3589403974 102% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 36.28 53.8541721854 67% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 11.0289183223 115% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.39 12.2367328918 118% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.3 8.42419426049 110% => OK
difficult_words: 90.0 63.6247240618 141% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 10.7273730684 112% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => 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.