In the past, the information of patients was collected in paper forms. The reading passage debates a topic about shifting from collecting data of patients from paper form to electronic databases. The author acclaims that it can be so beneficial and gives three reasons of support for the assertion. Nevertheless, the professor clarifies that none of the reasons given by the writer are cogent.
First, the article discusses that this alteration can decrease the costs of storing, copying and transporting of papers. Even though, the professor contends that it can not reduce the costs generally. According to the professor statements, doctors who adopt to use electronic forms, keep information on paper as an emergency backup and for legal reasons, they accept to pay money for storing them. Consequently, this change cannot be economical.
Second, the professor opposes the writer's assertion about preventing errors. The article professes that by using electronic forms, the errors of bad handwriting will vanish because doctors should use the standard font of the computer. The professor rejects this idea by mentioning that doctors take notes by hand in electric forms and electronic forms should convert it to the standard font. As a result, bad handwriting would cause an error in forms.
Finally, the passage posits that this amendation would help researchers to collect data and use it for more research. The professor argues that it cannot be helpful because there are strict rules for using data of a patient. In the United States, patients can prohibit everybody to read their data and researchers should follow strict rules and obtain permission from all the patients. So, it's very hard for researchers and cannot be practical.
To sum up, the article and the professor have conflicting ideas about replacing electric forms with paper ones and pieces of evidence support that the professor is right and this change won't be fruitful.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 395, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...reasons given by the writer are cogent. First, the article discusses that this a...
^^^^
Line 2, column 166, Rule ID: CANT[1]
Message: Did you mean 'can't' or 'cannot'?
Suggestion: can't; cannot
... though, the professor contends that it cant reduce the costs generally. According t...
^^^^
Line 2, column 250, Rule ID: ADOPT_TO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'adapt to'?
Suggestion: adapt to
...o the professor statements, doctors who adopt to use electronic forms, keep information ...
^^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 422, Rule ID: CANT[1]
Message: Did you mean 'can't' or 'cannot'?
Suggestion: can't; cannot
...storing them. Consequently, this change cant be economical. Second, the professor o...
^^^^
Line 3, column 35, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'writers'' or 'writer's'?
Suggestion: writers'; writer's
...cal. Second, the professor opposes the writers assertion about preventing errors. The ...
^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 147, Rule ID: CANT[1]
Message: Did you mean 'can't' or 'cannot'?
Suggestion: can't; cannot
... research. The professor argues that it cant be helpful because there are strict rul...
^^^^
Line 4, column 422, Rule ID: CANT[1]
Message: Did you mean 'can't' or 'cannot'?
Suggestion: can't; cannot
.... So, its very hard for researchers and cant be practical. To sum up, the article a...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
consequently, finally, first, if, nevertheless, second, so, as a result, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 10.4613686534 86% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 5.04856512141 178% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 7.30242825607 151% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 23.0 22.412803532 103% => OK
Preposition: 37.0 30.3222958057 122% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 5.01324503311 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1631.0 1373.03311258 119% => OK
No of words: 311.0 270.72406181 115% => OK
Chars per words: 5.24437299035 5.08290768461 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.19942759058 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.70523701295 2.5805825403 105% => OK
Unique words: 165.0 145.348785872 114% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.530546623794 0.540411800872 98% => OK
syllable_count: 488.7 419.366225166 117% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 13.0 8.23620309051 158% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => 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: 46.7193638863 49.2860985944 95% => OK
Chars per sentence: 95.9411764706 110.228320801 87% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.2941176471 21.698381199 84% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.82352941176 7.06452816374 68% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 7.0 4.19205298013 167% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.27373068433 164% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.248662778934 0.272083759551 91% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0797471805825 0.0996497079465 80% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0533924509944 0.0662205650399 81% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.136593196501 0.162205337803 84% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0377238855129 0.0443174109184 85% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.4 13.3589403974 93% => 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: 13.11 12.2367328918 107% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.84 8.42419426049 105% => OK
difficult_words: 85.0 63.6247240618 134% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.0 10.7273730684 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => 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.