Both the passage and the lecture discuss medical data storage, more specifically, whether this data should be stored electronically or by paper. The author of the passage thinks that there are many benefits from storing this information on an electronic system. On the other hand, the lecturer thinks that there is no real benefit from it. She presents points and arguments that effectively cast doubt on the assertions made by the author.
First, the passage argues that there is an economic benefit from E-storing. It is mentioned that faxing, copying or keeping a physical space for the data is expensive and storing them electronically would eliminate this cost. The professor does not agree with this. She points out that doctors who have adopted new measures for storing data still use pen and paper for back-up in case of an emergency or legal reasons, like when a signature is needed.
Second, the Author suggests that using computers to store data would reduce the human error. He says that things like bad hand-writing or lack of standardization lead to confusion that end up harming patients and using computers would avoid this. The lecturer rebuts this argument, she explains that doctors always use pen and paper, even when they have adopted new technologies. And on this cases, the doctor's personnel are the ones submitting paper data into computers, and they had to deal with the same problems that if they were only using paper.
Finally, the text posits that medical research would benefit from innovative data storage. The article establishes that physical data is not very accessible and using electronics would make the data more easily usable for researchers. The lecturer opposes this argument. She says that it would not help in any way to have the data store in a cloud. She explains that medical data is subject to privacy laws that can not be avoided, even when using electronics.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 388, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'these'?
Suggestion: these
...y have adopted new technologies. And on this cases, the doctors personnel are the on...
^^^^
Line 5, column 404, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'doctors'' or 'doctor's'?
Suggestion: doctors'; doctor's
...ew technologies. And on this cases, the doctors personnel are the ones submitting paper...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, if, second, so, still, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 10.4613686534 115% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 5.04856512141 158% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 7.30242825607 178% => OK
Relative clauses : 20.0 12.0772626932 166% => OK
Pronoun: 37.0 22.412803532 165% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 29.0 30.3222958057 96% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1599.0 1373.03311258 116% => OK
No of words: 318.0 270.72406181 117% => OK
Chars per words: 5.02830188679 5.08290768461 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.22286093782 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.58136262717 2.5805825403 100% => OK
Unique words: 169.0 145.348785872 116% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.531446540881 0.540411800872 98% => OK
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: 7.0 3.25607064018 215% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 13.0662251656 130% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 42.2714903065 49.2860985944 86% => OK
Chars per sentence: 94.0588235294 110.228320801 85% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.7058823529 21.698381199 86% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.58823529412 7.06452816374 51% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 4.33554083885 161% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 4.45695364238 179% => 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: 0.278182523545 0.272083759551 102% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0914436556678 0.0996497079465 92% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0550042365646 0.0662205650399 83% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.178726448769 0.162205337803 110% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0192363768353 0.0443174109184 43% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.6 13.3589403974 87% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 53.8541721854 99% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 11.0289183223 93% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.89 12.2367328918 97% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.75 8.42419426049 104% => OK
difficult_words: 85.0 63.6247240618 134% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 10.7273730684 79% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 73.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.0 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.