Voting systems.
Both the passage and the lecture are regarding voting systems, which is essential part of elections. Although the author proclaims that computerized voting systems are more effective, the lecturer accentuates that, in fact, computerized votings systems possess several drawbacks, and thus, conventional votings systems are more reliable.
Firstly, the author asserts that computers are much safer than paper ballots since people may add additional paper ballots, yet people might not cause that problems on computers, which renders computers to be more trustworthy. On the other hand, the lecturer contradicts this statement by mentioning that, indeed, the same problem may be encountered in computers as well. Skillful hackers can devastate the system by either adding or subtracting votes.
Secondly, from the perspective of author, computerized systems are more affordable because in order to distribute paper ballots, one have to purchase a myriad of papers. That being said, the lecturer rebuts this opinion by declaring that so as to have computerized voting systems, governments have to provide an array of equipments to maintain operations.
Thirdly, the author claims that proposed system would engender less loss votes for paper ballots can get lost during elections, and additionally, sometimes it is arduous to determine which candidate voter meant. However, the lecturer refutes this claim by stating that computers might malfunction, which leads to mechanical failure, not to mention loss votes.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...nal votings systems are more reliable. Firstly, the author asserts that compute...
^^
Line 3, column 239, Rule ID: SO_AS_TO[1]
Message: Use simply 'to'
Suggestion: to
...r rebuts this opinion by declaring that so as to have computerized voting systems, gover...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, firstly, however, may, regarding, second, secondly, so, third, thirdly, thus, well, as to, in fact, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.4613686534 96% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 5.04856512141 139% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 12.0772626932 108% => OK
Pronoun: 13.0 22.412803532 58% => OK
Preposition: 26.0 30.3222958057 86% => 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: 1287.0 1373.03311258 94% => OK
No of words: 226.0 270.72406181 83% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.69469026549 5.08290768461 112% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.87727950738 4.04702891845 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.84255791223 2.5805825403 110% => OK
Unique words: 140.0 145.348785872 96% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.619469026549 0.540411800872 115% => OK
syllable_count: 390.6 419.366225166 93% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 3.25607064018 31% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.51434878587 198% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 9.0 13.0662251656 69% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 25.0 21.2450331126 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 51.0884007516 49.2860985944 104% => OK
Chars per sentence: 143.0 110.228320801 130% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.1111111111 21.698381199 116% => OK
Discourse Markers: 14.3333333333 7.06452816374 203% => Less transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => 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: 0.216614851293 0.272083759551 80% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0937654703741 0.0996497079465 94% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.120710240721 0.0662205650399 182% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.141747033213 0.162205337803 87% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.135344016623 0.0443174109184 305% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.9 13.3589403974 134% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 37.64 53.8541721854 70% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 11.0289183223 129% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.02 12.2367328918 131% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.26 8.42419426049 122% => OK
difficult_words: 77.0 63.6247240618 121% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 10.7273730684 131% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 10.498013245 114% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.2008830022 125% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 81.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.5 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.