tpo6
First of all, the author claims that who write the online encyclopedia are not enough deft, so they are not as qualified as who write traditional encyclopedia. This point is challenged by the lecture. She says that traditional encyclopedia are not accurate, and in other hand in online encyclopedia if there are some mistake, always there is a chance to easily correct them, so we must not concern about lacking expert in writing online encyclopedia.
Secondly, the authors states that always there is danger for haking online encyclopedia. He argues if one person modifed the contexts of this encyclopedia, prople can not read accurate text. This argument is rebutted by the lecture. She suggests that there are two way for protecting these encyclopedias from changing by vandal persons. First, we can change the format of writing in a way that hacker can not alter the context. Second, we can use special authors for this purpose.
Finally, the author mentions that the online encyclopedia repeat unimportant topics very much, so people who read them confuse between essential context and other issus. The lecture, on the other hand, feels that if online encyclopedia focus very much in some context, because they do not have limited space and space is not issu for them and they can sa.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 125, Rule ID: IN_WHO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'whom'?
Suggestion: whom
...h deft, so they are not as qualified as who write traditional encyclopedia. This po...
^^^
Line 1, column 318, Rule ID: THERE_RE_MANY[3]
Message: Possible agreement error. Did you mean 'mistakes'?
Suggestion: mistakes
...n online encyclopedia if there are some mistake, always there is a chance to easily cor...
^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['but', 'finally', 'first', 'if', 'second', 'secondly', 'so', 'first of all', 'on the other hand']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.2125 0.261695866417 81% => OK
Verbs: 0.158333333333 0.158904122519 100% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0833333333333 0.0723426182421 115% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0791666666667 0.0435111971325 182% => Less adverbs wanted.
Pronouns: 0.05 0.0277247811725 180% => OK
Prepositions: 0.141666666667 0.128828473217 110% => OK
Participles: 0.0416666666667 0.0370669169778 112% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.69191847845 2.5805825403 104% => OK
Infinitives: 0.00416666666667 0.0208969081088 20% => Some infinitives wanted.
Particles: 0.0 0.00154638098197 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.0875 0.128158765124 68% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.025 0.0158828679856 157% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0125 0.0114777025283 109% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 1293.0 1645.83664459 79% => OK
No of words: 215.0 271.125827815 79% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 6.01395348837 6.08160592843 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.82921379641 4.04852973271 95% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.372093023256 0.374372842146 99% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.232558139535 0.287516216867 81% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.162790697674 0.187439937562 87% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.0883720930233 0.113142543107 78% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.69191847845 2.5805825403 104% => OK
Unique words: 120.0 145.348785872 83% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.558139534884 0.539623497131 103% => OK
Word variations: 52.101486946 53.8517498576 97% => OK
How many sentences: 11.0 13.0529801325 84% => OK
Sentence length: 19.5454545455 21.7502111507 90% => OK
Sentence length SD: 63.5745153994 49.3711431718 129% => OK
Chars per sentence: 117.545454545 132.220823453 89% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.5454545455 21.7502111507 90% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.818181818182 0.878197800319 93% => OK
Paragraphs: 3.0 4.09492273731 73% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 3.39072847682 59% => OK
Readability: 42.8012684989 50.5018328374 85% => OK
Elegance: 1.3768115942 1.90840788429 72% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0 0.549887131256 0% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.104796044854 0.142949733639 73% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0858638460957 0.0787303798458 109% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.5260314925 0.631733273073 83% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.183926975264 0.139662658121 132% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0 0.266732575781 0% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.103435571967 0% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.318706846462 0.414875509568 77% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0400441661141 0.0530846634433 75% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0 0.40443939384 0% => The content is off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0528353158467 0% => The ideas may be duplicated in paragraphs.
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.26048565121 70% => OK
Positive topic words: 3.0 3.49668874172 86% => OK
Negative topic words: 4.0 3.62251655629 110% => OK
Neutral topic words: 2.0 3.1766004415 63% => OK
Total topic words: 9.0 10.2958057395 87% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Not in a correct format.
The correct pattern:
para 1: introduction
para 2: doubt 1
para 3: doubt 2
para 4: doubt 3
Less contents wanted from the reading passages(25%) but more content wanted from the lecture (75%).
Don't need a conclusion paragraph.
Read sample essays from ETS:
http://www.testbig.com/users/toeflwritingmaster
Rates: 70.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 21.0 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.