Both the author and the lecturer discuss about the possible advantages of using electronic medical records instead of traditional form of it-recording and storing in paper forms. Whereas the author posits that this method have several advantages, the lecturer contradicts this claim and provides evidence to the contrary.
First, the author argues that using electronic records reduces the cost of storing and paper material. He mentioned, indeed, the electronic method takes no space and also makes easy to access, duplicate and transfer data. Conversely, the lecturer brings up the idea that in electronic method there is also the need of paper. Doctors who record patients information also use papers to have a backup of data. Thus, this method does not solve the high cost of papers.
Furthermore, according to the reading passage, use of electronic medical records helps to lessen the probable errors such as illegible handwriting, impair transcriptions and the papers which are not well-organized. On the contrary, the professor underlines the fact that with this new method doctors still have to take notes of transcriptions and essential information. Hence, the problem of poor handwriting is already exist.
Finally, the author holds the view that electronic records are useful for creating a great database of patient records which helps physicians to take out the vital information they need from this medical database. The lecturer, on the other hand, strongly challenges this concept. He mentioned that it is difficult to access to the information because of privacy laws. They should go through a strict precedure and the have to get permission from patients who might block the use of their information for medical treatment.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 345, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'patients'' or 'patient's'?
Suggestion: patients'; patient's
...o the need of paper. Doctors who record patients information also use papers to have a b...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, conversely, finally, first, furthermore, hence, if, so, still, thus, well, whereas, such as, on the contrary, on the other hand
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: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 19.0 22.412803532 85% => OK
Preposition: 34.0 30.3222958057 112% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 5.01324503311 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1478.0 1373.03311258 108% => OK
No of words: 274.0 270.72406181 101% => OK
Chars per words: 5.39416058394 5.08290768461 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.0685311056 4.04702891845 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.82826700493 2.5805825403 110% => OK
Unique words: 151.0 145.348785872 104% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.551094890511 0.540411800872 102% => OK
syllable_count: 450.0 419.366225166 107% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 51.9269502596 49.2860985944 105% => OK
Chars per sentence: 105.571428571 110.228320801 96% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.5714285714 21.698381199 90% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.5 7.06452816374 134% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => 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: 3.0 4.27373068433 70% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.51238000569 0.272083759551 188% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.165823939815 0.0996497079465 166% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.146825725227 0.0662205650399 222% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.303285323791 0.162205337803 187% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0475247287939 0.0443174109184 107% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.7 13.3589403974 103% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 53.8541721854 97% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 11.0289183223 97% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.98 12.2367328918 114% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.9 8.42419426049 106% => OK
difficult_words: 75.0 63.6247240618 118% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 10.7273730684 112% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.2008830022 125% => 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.