tpo7
Both the reading and lecture are about a new ecological standard which helps companies to conserve and recycle resources materials in the forest. In this way a well-known agency tenders a certification to wood companies; therefore, wood firms will attract more customers. The reading provides three reasons that American wood companies will not join this program. The lecturer casts doubt on the claims made in the article and finds all arguments dubious.
First of all, the author of reading declares that certification will cause wood companies to appeal more customers through advertising; however, American people do not rely on advertising; hence, wood companies will not be prosperous with this approach. This point is challenged by the professor. He points out that surprisingly, In the United State, people have ability of distinguishing between a company which advertises its own products and a company which has been certified its products by a famous international agency. In short, people prefer to take advantage of the reputation of the mentioned agency.
Secondly, the article contends that in aforementioned method, price for certified woods will increase and people avoid buying certified woods, in contrast, the lecturer believes that American people consider other factors besides cost. For instance, if difference of price is low between two products -say 5 percentages-, American people would rather take other aspects like quality into account.
Finally, the reading passage states that American wood companies will fail in international trading because for being success in abroad, companies must be able to attract internal costumers. This argument is rebutted by the professor again and he poses that us companies pay attention to foreign competition a lot; consequently, if they would catch their internal customers slowly; finally, foreign customers will hear about certified woods and their reputation in the USA, so they start buying them.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-07-21 | SeehtEntity | 73 | view |
| 2019-03-31 | Fatemehhh | 73 | view |
| 2017-11-06 | pooria | 73 | view |
| 2017-08-11 | peerless alex | 3 | view |
Transition Words or Phrases used:
besides, but, consequently, finally, first, hence, however, if, second, secondly, so, therefore, well, for instance, in contrast, in short, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 15.1003584229 53% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 9.8082437276 102% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 13.8261648746 51% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 10.0 11.0286738351 91% => OK
Pronoun: 22.0 43.0788530466 51% => OK
Preposition: 37.0 52.1666666667 71% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 8.0752688172 111% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1680.0 1977.66487455 85% => OK
No of words: 302.0 407.700716846 74% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.56291390728 4.8611393121 114% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.1687104957 4.48103885553 93% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.87226414526 2.67179642975 108% => OK
Unique words: 172.0 212.727598566 81% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.569536423841 0.524837075471 109% => OK
syllable_count: 507.6 618.680645161 82% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.51630824373 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 9.59856630824 31% => OK
Article: 6.0 3.08781362007 194% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.51792114695 57% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.86738351254 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.94265232975 81% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 20.6003584229 58% => 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 20.1344086022 124% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 77.8415413231 48.9658058833 159% => OK
Chars per sentence: 140.0 100.406767564 139% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.1666666667 20.6045352989 122% => OK
Discourse Markers: 12.6666666667 5.45110844103 232% => Less transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.5376344086 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 11.8709677419 59% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 3.85842293907 130% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.88709677419 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 0.236089414692 0% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0 0.076458572812 0% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0737576698707 0% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0 0.150856017488 0% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0645574589148 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: 17.3 11.7677419355 147% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 37.64 58.1214874552 65% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.10430107527 144% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 10.1575268817 140% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.26 10.9000537634 140% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.06 8.01818996416 113% => OK
difficult_words: 80.0 86.8835125448 92% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 10.002688172 115% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 10.0537634409 119% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 10.247311828 117% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
We are expecting: No. of Words: 350 while No. of Different Words: 200
Better to have 5 paragraphs with 3 arguments. And try always support/against one side but compare two sides, like this:
para 1: introduction
para 2: reason 1. address both of the views presented for reason 1
para 3: reason 2. address both of the views presented for reason 2
para 4: reason 3. address both of the views presented for reason 3
para 5: conclusion.
So how to find out those reasons. There is a formula:
reasons == advantages or
reasons == disadvantages
for example, we can always apply 'save time', 'save/make money', 'find a job', 'make friends', 'get more information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.
or we can apply 'waste time', 'waste money', 'no job', 'make bad friends', 'get bad information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.
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.