TPO46
The professor revises the idea presented in the passage that argues the three possible benefits of using electronic medical record systems compared to printed ones and refutes each of the points made in the text.
First of all, the reading passage suggests that electronic records can reduce the costs of storing because they need almost no space. The professor rejects this idea by explaining that doctors have to keep the paper records for emergency backups. Besides, they need the paper records with signature for legal procedures. Thus, they have to pay for paper records even if they use electronic records. So, the first reason has some deficiencies regarding the goal of the passage.
Secondly, the professor's opinion contradicts the second reason mentioned in the passage that electronic records can decrease the number of medical errors ensuing illegible handwriting and so forth. She clarifies that doctors still should use papers and pens while examining their patients. Moreover, usually, staff members type the details of the doctor's explanations afterwards. Therefore, using electronic records cannot reduce medical errors. Thus, it seems that the second theory is not a good response to the main point of the text.
Finally, the author states that large amounts of available medical data about patients can help medical research to be done more efficiently. Conversely, the professor holds a different view. She believes that there are very strict privacy laws in order to access medical information in the United States. Also, patients can keep their data private if they wish to. So, researchers need to pass a lot of complicated procedures to obtain the required permissions. Besides, the patients can block the use of their data whenever they want. Hence, the third reason does not hold true due to the lack of compelling reasoning.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 15, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'professors'' or 'professor's'?
Suggestion: professors'; professor's
...he goal of the passage. Secondly, the professors opinion contradicts the second reason m...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... to the lack of compelling reasoning.
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, besides, conversely, finally, first, hence, if, moreover, regarding, second, secondly, so, still, therefore, third, thus, while, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 3.0 10.4613686534 29% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 5.04856512141 198% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 7.30242825607 41% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 8.0 12.0772626932 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 21.0 22.412803532 94% => OK
Preposition: 31.0 30.3222958057 102% => 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: 1568.0 1373.03311258 114% => OK
No of words: 296.0 270.72406181 109% => OK
Chars per words: 5.2972972973 5.08290768461 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.14784890444 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.583076825 2.5805825403 100% => OK
Unique words: 173.0 145.348785872 119% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.584459459459 0.540411800872 108% => OK
syllable_count: 477.9 419.366225166 114% => 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: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 0.0 2.5761589404 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 13.0662251656 138% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 21.2450331126 75% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 43.2008301818 49.2860985944 88% => OK
Chars per sentence: 87.1111111111 110.228320801 79% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.4444444444 21.698381199 76% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.16666666667 7.06452816374 116% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.27373068433 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.47819124576 0.272083759551 176% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.131843697887 0.0996497079465 132% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.110087690318 0.0662205650399 166% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.265420683353 0.162205337803 164% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0653143252089 0.0443174109184 147% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.8 13.3589403974 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 55.24 53.8541721854 103% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 11.0289183223 86% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.16 12.2367328918 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.59 8.42419426049 102% => OK
difficult_words: 78.0 63.6247240618 123% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 10.498013245 80% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 86.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 26.0 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.