TPO11
The reading passage deals with the issue of young people nowadays reading less literature. The professor's talk focuses on the same issue. However, she believes that the trend didn't have such bad effects like the reading passage states, which is exactly the opposite of what the reading states. And in the lecture, she makes three specific points to back up her point of view.
In the first place, even though the reading passage suggests that the decline of reading literature is troublesome because literature can surely stimulate people's intelligence, the professor claims in the lecture that the book we read don't have to be literature. This is because there are many subjects can also improve intelligence, which means many books in other fields can exercise our imaginations and expand our understanding of many things. Apparently, the professor's argument disproves its counterpart in the reading.
In the second place, contrary to the statement in the reading that in today's society, people turn to read best-sellers instead of literature and that will do harm to our culture, the professor argues that culture will not decline. Then she supports this point with the fact that if people listen to beautiful music or fine movies, it is also not a waste of time. In other words, culture has changed nowadays and we should accept all kinds of culture.
Further, while the author of the reading claims that many writers are very talented and can write great literature today, the professor states that we shouldn't blame the audience about reading less literature. The professor shows that the claim in the reading is very weak by pointing out that many author are writing articles and books really hard to understand,-that is to say, it is the writer who should take responsible for the problem.
To sum up, the professor precisely discovers the flaws in the reading passage and successfully reveals that the main argument in the reading is incorrect.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 176, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: didn't
...e. However, she believes that the trend didnt have such bad effects like the reading ...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 236, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...ms in the lecture that the book we read dont have to be literature. This is because ...
^^^^
Line 3, column 465, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'professors'' or 'professor's'?
Suggestion: professors'; professor's
...tanding of many things. Apparently, the professors argument disproves its counterpart in t...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 152, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: shouldn't
...ure today, the professor states that we shouldnt blame the audience about reading less l...
^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 295, Rule ID: MANY_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun author seems to be countable; consider using: 'many authors'.
Suggestion: many authors
...ading is very weak by pointing out that many author are writing articles and books really h...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 363, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma
Suggestion: , -that
...cles and books really hard to understand,-that is to say, it is the writer who should ...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, apparently, first, however, if, really, second, so, then, while, in other words, to sum up, in the first place, in the second place, that is to say
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 : 8.0 7.30242825607 110% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 12.0772626932 132% => OK
Pronoun: 28.0 22.412803532 125% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 40.0 30.3222958057 132% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1643.0 1373.03311258 120% => OK
No of words: 323.0 270.72406181 119% => OK
Chars per words: 5.0866873065 5.08290768461 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.23936324884 4.04702891845 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.64373444682 2.5805825403 102% => OK
Unique words: 173.0 145.348785872 119% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.53560371517 0.540411800872 99% => OK
syllable_count: 503.1 419.366225166 120% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 21.2450331126 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 67.3715301661 49.2860985944 137% => OK
Chars per sentence: 126.384615385 110.228320801 115% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.8461538462 21.698381199 115% => OK
Discourse Markers: 11.7692307692 7.06452816374 167% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 4.19205298013 143% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 4.33554083885 161% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 4.45695364238 67% => 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: 0.420605550954 0.272083759551 155% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.14079939868 0.0996497079465 141% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.116860705585 0.0662205650399 176% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.230466459723 0.162205337803 142% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0535928372249 0.0443174109184 121% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.0 13.3589403974 112% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 47.12 53.8541721854 87% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 11.0289183223 115% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.54 12.2367328918 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.96 8.42419426049 94% => OK
difficult_words: 64.0 63.6247240618 101% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 10.498013245 110% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.2008830022 116% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
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.