TPO 6
The reading and lecture are both about the differences between the communal and traditional encyclopedias. Whereas the author of the reading mentions that the communal encyclopedias are disadvantageous than traditional encyclopedias because of the lack academic credentials of their contributors, unscrupulous nature of them, and unnecessary plethora of diversity, the lecturer repudiates these reasons. In other words, the lecturer casts doubts on the three major reasons made by the author. Besides, she says that communal encyclopedias have various advantages.
First of all, according to the reading, many communal encyclopedias are inaccurate because of their contributors’ weak academic credentials, on the other hand, the traditional encyclopedias are accurate in academic subject. Nevertheless, the lecturer disputes this point. He says that many encyclopedias are not complete and they have various peccadilloes or big errors. thus, it seems that there is not any difference between communal and traditional encyclopedias pertinent to the errors.
Secondly, the arguer holds that the online nature of communal encyclopedias opens doors to the felons, vandals, or hackers to change the materials easily; however, this process is not common in traditional encyclopedias. On the contrary, the lecturer repudiates this idea and mentions that by using a specific format for critical ideas or utilizing the people who are connoisseurs in detecting advertently mistakes, the reliability could be increased. thus, the author’s idea does not repudiate the advantages of communal encyclopedias.
Last but not least, although the author claims that the communal encyclopedias focus on the mundane subjects such as popular, trivial, and frequently matters, the lecturer declares that many traditional encyclopedias are not written according to the people’s interests. As well as, the diversity in communal encyclopedias is one of the great advantages.
In conclusion, even though the reading and listening are both about whether traditional or communal encyclopedias are better, the three main reasons are effectively challenged by the lecturer.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 377, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Thus
...ave various peccadilloes or big errors. thus, it seems that there is not any differe...
^^^^
Line 5, column 361, Rule ID: WHO_NOUN[1]
Message: A noun should not follow "who". Try changing to a verb or maybe to 'who is a are'.
Suggestion: who is a are
... critical ideas or utilizing the people who are connoisseurs in detecting advertently m...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 453, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Thus
...es, the reliability could be increased. thus, the author's idea does not repudi...
^^^^
Line 9, column 194, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...effectively challenged by the lecturer.
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
besides, but, first, however, if, nevertheless, second, secondly, so, thus, well, whereas, in conclusion, such as, as well as, first of all, in other words, on the contrary, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 10.4613686534 134% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 1.0 5.04856512141 20% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 7.30242825607 178% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 12.0772626932 75% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 19.0 22.412803532 85% => OK
Preposition: 32.0 30.3222958057 106% => OK
Nominalization: 1.0 5.01324503311 20% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1863.0 1373.03311258 136% => OK
No of words: 311.0 270.72406181 115% => OK
Chars per words: 5.99035369775 5.08290768461 118% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.19942759058 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.41892737893 2.5805825403 132% => OK
Unique words: 159.0 145.348785872 109% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.511254019293 0.540411800872 95% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 585.0 419.366225166 139% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.9 1.55342163355 122% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 12.0 8.23620309051 146% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.25165562914 240% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 3.0 1.51434878587 198% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 21.2450331126 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 80.3517775987 49.2860985944 163% => OK
Chars per sentence: 133.071428571 110.228320801 121% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.2142857143 21.698381199 102% => OK
Discourse Markers: 13.6428571429 7.06452816374 193% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 4.19205298013 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 4.45695364238 179% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.27373068433 23% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0 0.272083759551 0% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0 0.0996497079465 0% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0662205650399 0% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0 0.162205337803 0% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0443174109184 0% => 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: 17.9 13.3589403974 134% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 23.77 53.8541721854 44% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 13.0 5.55761589404 234% => Smog_index is high.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.4 11.0289183223 140% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 17.46 12.2367328918 143% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.04 8.42419426049 107% => OK
difficult_words: 85.0 63.6247240618 134% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 10.7273730684 131% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.498013245 103% => OK
text_standard: 18.0 11.2008830022 161% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 3.33333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.