COMMUNAL ONLINE ENCYCLOPEDIAS
Both the reading and the listening discuss whether online encyclopedias are less valuable than traditional or not. The former argues that they are less valuable for three main reasons. The latter contradicts each of these points, while acknowledging the importance of both.
First of all, the text challenges the credibility of the contributors of an online encyclopedia since they lack academic credentials. The information supplied by them is sometimes partially correct or factually inaccurate. The lecture argues that in the traditional encyclopedia errors cannot be corrected once it is printed. Errors, if any, stay in the edition for decades until a new version is released. But this is not the case with online encyclopedias, where any and every error can be corrected multiple times until it is accurate and factually correct.
Secondly, the author claims that since the online encyclopedias are available to everyone on the internet, hackers and malicious users can very easily corrupt, delete and fabricate crucial information about any topic, making it inconsistent. The speaker asserts that the online encyclopedias have crucial facts and information presented in a read-only fashion, which can only be accessed to edit by a qualified academician. Moreover, there are designated editors who monitor each of the edits recommended by the users. They filter out the malicious and false edits, and approve only the correct ones.
Finally, the passage asserts that the online encyclopedias focus too much on trivial and popular topics, giving a false impression to a user about what is important and what is not. Traditional encyclopedias focus on only the essential topics which are of academic importance. The lecturer rebuts that the traditional encyclopedias have a limited space and cannot include all the topics. A group of academicians who make decisions on which topic is important do not represent the whole readership. However, there is no space crunch in an online encyclopedia, and it includes academic as well as popular topics, representing the diversity in the reading interests of the users.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2021-10-03 | parangat90 | 71 | view |
| 2019-09-11 | littor5 | 60 | view |
| 2018-07-30 | alexdesouza1907 | 60 | view |
| 2018-07-28 | lanxinhh | 78 | view |
| 2018-07-19 | Shyam Pradhan | 80 | view |
- A recent sales study indicates that consumption of seafood dishes in Bay City restaurants has increased by 30 percent during the past five years Yet there are no currently operating city restaurants whose specialty is seafood Moreover the majority of fami 68
- The best way to solve environmental problems caused by consumer generated waste is for towns and cities to impose strict limits on the amount of trash they will accept from each household Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree 70
- COMMUNAL ONLINE ENCYCLOPEDIAS 71
- FRANCHISE AND INDIVIDUAL BUSINESSES 73
- Since those issues of Newsbeat magazine that featured political news on their front cover were the poorest selling issues over the past three years the publisher of Newsbeat has recommended that the magazine curtail its emphasis on politics to focus more 66
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 338, Rule ID: IN_A_X_MANNER[1]
Message: Consider replacing "in a read-only fashion" with adverb for "read-only"; eg, "in a hasty manner" with "hastily".
...crucial facts and information presented in a read-only fashion, which can only be accessed to edit by ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, finally, first, however, if, moreover, second, secondly, so, well, while, as well as, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 15.1003584229 113% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 9.8082437276 51% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 13.8261648746 108% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 11.0286738351 109% => OK
Pronoun: 16.0 43.0788530466 37% => OK
Preposition: 32.0 52.1666666667 61% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 8.0752688172 74% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1796.0 1977.66487455 91% => OK
No of words: 331.0 407.700716846 81% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.42598187311 4.8611393121 112% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.26537283232 4.48103885553 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.05650309803 2.67179642975 114% => OK
Unique words: 182.0 212.727598566 86% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.549848942598 0.524837075471 105% => OK
syllable_count: 587.7 618.680645161 95% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.51630824373 119% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 9.59856630824 10% => OK
Article: 10.0 3.08781362007 324% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 2.0 3.51792114695 57% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.86738351254 161% => OK
Preposition: 0.0 4.94265232975 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 20.6003584229 83% => 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: 19.0 20.1344086022 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 46.1605442749 48.9658058833 94% => OK
Chars per sentence: 105.647058824 100.406767564 105% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.4705882353 20.6045352989 94% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.64705882353 5.45110844103 122% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.5376344086 18% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 11.8709677419 76% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 3.85842293907 130% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.88709677419 61% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.26951386363 0.236089414692 114% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0842791291291 0.076458572812 110% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0781828682639 0.0737576698707 106% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.163154917581 0.150856017488 108% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.032833033579 0.0645574589148 51% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.9 11.7677419355 118% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 35.27 58.1214874552 61% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.10430107527 144% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.1 10.1575268817 129% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.21 10.9000537634 130% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.35 8.01818996416 117% => OK
difficult_words: 100.0 86.8835125448 115% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.002688172 80% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.0537634409 95% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 10.247311828 137% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.
Rates: 71.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 21.5 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.