The passage discusses some of the problems of the communal online encyclopedias, which leads them to become less valuable over traditional ones. However, the lecturer challenges the claim made by the author. She is of the opinion the perfect encyclopedia would not be reachable.
Firstly, the article asserts that the online versions of encyclopedias suffer from poor credits. It argues that, while skillful experts write the conventional encyclopedias, the online ones are written by the partially informed people. The specific argument is challenged by the lecturer. She states that errors have existed in both online and traditional versions; however, mistakes would remain in printed books for decades; it could be modified in the online versions.
Secondly, the writer mentions another deficiency is that the hackers' accessibility for modifying the original text. The lecturer, however, refutes this by saying that there would be a solution by providing a format that no one can change it. Also, she states that there is an alternative strategy, which defines a particular editor, who is responsible for maintaining the originality of the context by eliminating irrelevant changes.
Finally, the author posits that the online encyclopedias often concentrate intensely on the minor subjects, which leads to false influences on what is really important. Nevertheless, the lecture puts forward the counterargument that due to the space shortage, traditional encyclopedias don't reflect the people interests and one of the significant advantages of the online version is the subject diversity.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 23, Rule ID: SOME_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'some'.
Suggestion: some
The passage discusses some of the problems of the communal online encyclo...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 62, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'hackers'' or 'hacker's'?
Suggestion: hackers'; hacker's
...mentions another deficiency is that the hackers accessibility for modifying the origina...
^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 286, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...ace shortage, traditional encyclopedias dont reflect the people interests and one of...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, first, firstly, however, if, nevertheless, really, second, secondly, so, while
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 10.4613686534 105% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 2.0 7.30242825607 27% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 13.0 12.0772626932 108% => OK
Pronoun: 17.0 22.412803532 76% => OK
Preposition: 23.0 30.3222958057 76% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 5.01324503311 60% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1356.0 1373.03311258 99% => OK
No of words: 241.0 270.72406181 89% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.6265560166 5.08290768461 111% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.94007293032 4.04702891845 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.09715391779 2.5805825403 120% => OK
Unique words: 150.0 145.348785872 103% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.622406639004 0.540411800872 115% => OK
syllable_count: 432.0 419.366225166 103% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.55342163355 116% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
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: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 54.0438993371 49.2860985944 110% => OK
Chars per sentence: 113.0 110.228320801 103% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.0833333333 21.698381199 93% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.75 7.06452816374 110% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 4.33554083885 185% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.27373068433 0% => 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: 15.1 13.3589403974 113% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 34.26 53.8541721854 64% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 5.55761589404 202% => Smog_index is high.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.5 11.0289183223 122% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.37 12.2367328918 126% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.39 8.42419426049 123% => OK
difficult_words: 88.0 63.6247240618 138% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.0 10.7273730684 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => 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.