According to the passage, it is the authors' conviction that electronic medical is more advantageous than paper-based record keeping. However, the professor casts doubt on this claim and rejects the authors' points by providing some evidence which will be explained in the following paragraphs.
Firstly, the passage asserts that electronic records would be less expensive than paper-record as paper records considerably require saving space in spite of electronic records. In the opposition, the speaker refuses this point by stating that doctors keep paper records as their emergency back up. Even if the doctors adopt electronic records, they still write on paper as well. Therefore, electronic records do not have any economic benefits.
Secondly, the writer mentions that electronic records would eliminate problems originating from doctors' poor handwriting. On the contrary, the lecturer implies that professor who adopts electronic records write on the paper, then, their secretaries save the information as electronic records so the illegible handwriting would cause errors still.
Thirdly, the reading points out that electronic records make the access to the patients' information more convenient. In the contrast, the professor declares that access to patients' records is limited by privacy law. Thus, the researcher should follow the procedure which will contain patients' permission. Also, patients can prevent researchers to find about their records so electronic records do not simplify researchers' job.
In conclusion, the professor mentions evidence which support his points of view.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 37, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
According to the passage, it is the authors conviction that electronic medical is m...
^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 80, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'patients'' or 'patient's'?
Suggestion: patients'; patient's
...ectronic records make the access to the patients information more convenient. In the con...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, firstly, however, if, second, secondly, so, still, then, therefore, third, thirdly, thus, well, in conclusion, in spite of, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 5.0 10.4613686534 48% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 5.04856512141 139% => OK
Conjunction : 1.0 7.30242825607 14% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 15.0 22.412803532 67% => OK
Preposition: 21.0 30.3222958057 69% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1366.0 1373.03311258 99% => OK
No of words: 235.0 270.72406181 87% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.81276595745 5.08290768461 114% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.91531732006 4.04702891845 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.8363098719 2.5805825403 110% => OK
Unique words: 137.0 145.348785872 94% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.582978723404 0.540411800872 108% => OK
syllable_count: 406.8 419.366225166 97% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 42.5723192563 49.2860985944 86% => OK
Chars per sentence: 105.076923077 110.228320801 95% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.0769230769 21.698381199 83% => OK
Discourse Markers: 11.6923076923 7.06452816374 166% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => 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: 0.559917895479 0.272083759551 206% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.208490139005 0.0996497079465 209% => Sentence topic similarity is high.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.121263470091 0.0662205650399 183% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.279193543627 0.162205337803 172% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.15447627263 0.0443174109184 349% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.0 13.3589403974 112% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 44.75 53.8541721854 83% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 11.0289183223 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.12 12.2367328918 132% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.3 8.42419426049 110% => OK
difficult_words: 71.0 63.6247240618 112% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 10.7273730684 112% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => 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.