tpo46
Both author and lecturer offer two opposing views on the advantages of electronic-based record keeping by the doctors. While the reading part lists three benefits of this method, the professor counters these specific points and presents some clues to call into the question for the information mentioned in the reading passage.
First of all, the article posits that the electronic-based recording reduces the cost of storage and transferring the data. However, the instructor challenges the validity of this assumption. As she asserts, the doctors who use the electronic databases have to store the paper-based records for the sake of the emergency situation or legal requirement of the signature in the paper-based database. As a result, although they consume the electronic databases, they do not save the cost of the storage related to the old paper-based records.
Next, meanwhile, the text mentions that the electronic databases prevent the errors as the possible benefits of this method, the lecturer dismisses this fact due to the fact that the primer transcriptions are written by hands. Based on her assertion, since the first record of the doctor is inscribed by the doctors' poor handwriting, and those transcriptions are entered to the electronic format later by the other people, the feasibility of mistake is as high as the previous method.
Finally, the passage assumes that this record is convenient for use; thus, it aids the research. Conversely, the professor underlines the privacy law as the difficulty of accessing the data. As she states, although the data can quickly analyze in the computer, there is a list of restricted laws which ban the other people from having access to the patients' medical records. If they prefer to achieve this information, they have to gain lots of the permissions which is an arduous and unguaranteed task, as the patient is able to block the availability of his medical record for any reason. Consequently, the electronic databases do nothing to ease the research process.
Discourse Markers used:
['consequently', 'conversely', 'finally', 'first', 'however', 'if', 'so', 'thus', 'while', 'as a result', 'first of all']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.263888888889 0.261695866417 101% => OK
Verbs: 0.133333333333 0.158904122519 84% => OK
Adjectives: 0.075 0.0723426182421 104% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0305555555556 0.0435111971325 70% => OK
Pronouns: 0.025 0.0277247811725 90% => OK
Prepositions: 0.127777777778 0.128828473217 99% => OK
Participles: 0.0333333333333 0.0370669169778 90% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.98350061556 2.5805825403 116% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0277777777778 0.0208969081088 133% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.00154638098197 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.186111111111 0.128158765124 145% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.00277777777778 0.0158828679856 17% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.00833333333333 0.0114777025283 73% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2035.0 1645.83664459 124% => OK
No of words: 326.0 271.125827815 120% => OK
Chars per words: 6.24233128834 6.08160592843 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.24917287072 4.04852973271 105% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.383435582822 0.374372842146 102% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.334355828221 0.287516216867 116% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.230061349693 0.187439937562 123% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.153374233129 0.113142543107 136% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.98350061556 2.5805825403 116% => OK
Unique words: 181.0 145.348785872 125% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.555214723926 0.539623497131 103% => OK
Word variations: 59.7606968139 53.8517498576 111% => OK
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0529801325 100% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0769230769 21.7502111507 115% => OK
Sentence length SD: 60.9360902962 49.3711431718 123% => OK
Chars per sentence: 156.538461538 132.220823453 118% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.0769230769 21.7502111507 115% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.846153846154 0.878197800319 96% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 3.39072847682 0% => OK
Readability: 58.512505899 50.5018328374 116% => OK
Elegance: 2.25 1.90840788429 118% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.515457978098 0.549887131256 94% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.178092798478 0.142949733639 125% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0798916295934 0.0787303798458 101% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.732826661348 0.631733273073 116% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.121566568321 0.139662658121 87% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.282196452698 0.266732575781 106% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0708710866017 0.103435571967 69% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.631905897165 0.414875509568 152% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0497343914389 0.0530846634433 94% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.393270833087 0.40443939384 97% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0664757346406 0.0528353158467 126% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.26048565121 47% => OK
Positive topic words: 3.0 3.49668874172 86% => OK
Negative topic words: 3.0 3.62251655629 83% => OK
Neutral topic words: 2.0 3.1766004415 63% => OK
Total topic words: 8.0 10.2958057395 78% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 86.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 26.0 Out of 30
---------------------
Note: This is not the final score. 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.