Both the reading passage and the lecture discuss storing medical information about patients on electronic devices rather than on paper forms. Albeit the author tries to make this method seem more advantageous, the lecturer challenges all the benefits offered by article, and refutes them all.
First of all, the author points to the cost reduction due to the fact that storing records in electronic devices doesn't need space, and that doctors can have access to records anywhere. In addition, the cost of copying and faxing would be eliminated, as they can easily duplicate and transfer data. However, the lecturer mentions some doctors who although have adapted to electronic devices, still need to keep up with paper forms in emergency. Moreover, as for some legal purposes paper forms are required, they have to pay for paper too.
Second, according to the author, personal errors would become fewer which happen due to illegible handwriting. Yet, the lecture opposes this idea and mentions the real process of recording on electronic devices. As a matter of fact, at the first step, doctors take note on paper and after that, an office staff would transfer that information into the electronic device. As the office staff has to interpret what has been written on the paper, the probability of error wouldn't decrease.
Finally, in accordance with what the author believes, using electronic devices would help researchers draw out simply the information from medical database. However, the lecturer states that this benefit is not achieved necessarily. According to privacy laws in US, records of every patient must be kept private, if they wish, and patients can block their medical records due to any reason. And thus, there wouldn't be any database for researchers to draw out information from. In conclusion, using electronic devices might not lead to the three benefits mentioned in the reading passage.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 114, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...t storing records in electronic devices doesnt need space, and that doctors can have a...
^^^^^^
Line 3, column 469, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: wouldn't
... on the paper, the probability of error wouldnt decrease. Finally, in accordance with...
^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 408, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: wouldn't
...ords due to any reason. And thus, there wouldnt be any database for researchers to draw...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, first, however, if, moreover, second, so, still, thus, as for, as to, in addition, in conclusion, as a matter of fact, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 6.0 10.4613686534 57% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 5.04856512141 218% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 12.0772626932 58% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 14.0 22.412803532 62% => OK
Preposition: 44.0 30.3222958057 145% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 5.01324503311 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1608.0 1373.03311258 117% => OK
No of words: 308.0 270.72406181 114% => OK
Chars per words: 5.22077922078 5.08290768461 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.18926351222 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.57378876336 2.5805825403 100% => OK
Unique words: 174.0 145.348785872 120% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.564935064935 0.540411800872 105% => OK
syllable_count: 498.6 419.366225166 119% => 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: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 1.25165562914 399% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 4.0 1.51434878587 264% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 6.0 2.5761589404 233% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 30.9175246961 49.2860985944 63% => OK
Chars per sentence: 107.2 110.228320801 97% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.5333333333 21.698381199 95% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.33333333333 7.06452816374 132% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 4.33554083885 161% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => 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: 0.471082119962 0.272083759551 173% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.138566402172 0.0996497079465 139% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0915955771369 0.0662205650399 138% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.264237141006 0.162205337803 163% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0799990424301 0.0443174109184 181% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.4 13.3589403974 100% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 53.8541721854 95% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 11.0289183223 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.0 12.2367328918 106% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.68 8.42419426049 103% => OK
difficult_words: 79.0 63.6247240618 124% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => 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.