Imagine that you are in a classroom or a meeting. The teacher or the meeting leader says something incorrect. In your opinion, which of the following is the best thing to do?
— Interrupt and correct the mistake right away.
— Wait until the class or meeting is over and the people are gone, and then talk to the teacher or meeting leader.
— Say nothing.
Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer.
Today, education has an unavoidable impact on people's mindset and it is essential to prevent situations in which students and learners may get incorrect information about a topic and avoid its misleading circumstances. In this way, if I notice that a lecture is making mistakes about a subject, I prefer to stop them and solve the problem right away. The reasons to substantiate my viewpoint are elaborated upon hereunder.
To begin with, small errors and simple mistakes occasionally result in some huge problems which are hard to solve and tackle. Undoubtedly, people attend classes and meetings to respond to the acquisition of learning by depending on reliable sources. This means that today, we all can open up a web browser and search for data about a specific topic and simply read the first result that appears out there. However, there are no guarantees that what we are reading is a hundred percent true and reliable. So, when attending classes and meetings, people expect to get the correct information from specialists and professionalists, and hence, it is not acceptable to move on from mistakes made by the lecturer and let the false statements spread out.
Another reason that deserves some words here is that sometimes, lectures, conferences, and meetings that people join are held for just a session and there is no time to postpone corrections to another time. Therefore, I deem it to be somehow essential to mention the mistakes right at the time of noticing it because it may be impossible yo inform all the people joining the session about whatever went wrong later. My personal experience is a compelling example of this situation. I remember a few years ago I attended an art history class in which we discussed historical improvements of musical instruments. In that class, the professor made a small mistake about the time when a special difference was made in the structure of electric guitars and when I noticed it, I preferred to wait until the end of the class and explain why the statement was not historically authentic. So did I and told the teacher about the misconception at the end of the session. However, at that time, all the students left the place immediately, and since that session was the last one in the series, there were no chances to tell people what the truth is. So, I wondered that it would be better if I'd just stop the lecture for a minute and ask the professor to correct the statement.
To sum it up, I believe that it is better to interrupt lecturers and correct the mistakes right at the time of noticing them because we join professional classes to get more reliable information and there might not be any chances to correct the mistakes after the time when classes end.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-07-14 | Zmx_6 | 76 | view |
| 2023-07-12 | Zmx_6 | 80 | view |
| 2023-06-28 | Vivian Chang | 70 | view |
| 2023-03-22 | sonyeoso | 76 | view |
| 2023-02-20 | m.ghoroobi | 76 | view |
- In times of an economic crisis in which area should governments reduce their spending 1 Arts 2 Scientific research 3 Parks and public gardens 70
- As early as the twelfth century A D the settlements of Chaco Canyon in New Mexico in the American Southwest were notable for their great houses massive stone buildings that contain hundreds of rooms and often stand three or four stories high Archaeologist 80
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement All university students should be required to take history courses no matter what their field of study is Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer 95
- Burning coal in power plants produces a waste product called coal ash a material that contains small amounts of potentially harmful chemicals Environmentalists in the United States are concerned about the damage such harmful chemicals may be doing to the 85
- Pterosaurs were an ancient group of winged reptiles that lived alongside the dinosaurs Many pterosaurs were very large some as large as a giraffe and with a wingspan of over 12 meters Paleontologists have long wondered whether large pterosaurs were capabl 73
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 47, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'peoples'' or 'people's'?
Suggestion: peoples'; people's
... education has an unavoidable impact on peoples mindset and it is essential to prevent ...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 1183, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: I'd
..., I wondered that it would be better if Id just stop the lecture for a minute and...
^^
Line 3, column 1185, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...I wondered that it would be better if Id just stop the lecture for a minute and a...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, hence, however, if, may, so, then, therefore, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 15.1003584229 146% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 9.8082437276 51% => OK
Conjunction : 23.0 13.8261648746 166% => OK
Relative clauses : 19.0 11.0286738351 172% => OK
Pronoun: 43.0 43.0788530466 100% => OK
Preposition: 61.0 52.1666666667 117% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 8.0752688172 149% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2263.0 1977.66487455 114% => OK
No of words: 469.0 407.700716846 115% => OK
Chars per words: 4.82515991471 4.8611393121 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.65364457471 4.48103885553 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.81614605806 2.67179642975 105% => OK
Unique words: 237.0 212.727598566 111% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.505330490405 0.524837075471 96% => OK
syllable_count: 716.4 618.680645161 116% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.51630824373 99% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 9.59856630824 104% => OK
Article: 2.0 3.08781362007 65% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.51792114695 57% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.86738351254 161% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.94265232975 101% => OK
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: 27.0 20.1344086022 134% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 66.5777376884 48.9658058833 136% => OK
Chars per sentence: 133.117647059 100.406767564 133% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.5882352941 20.6045352989 134% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.88235294118 5.45110844103 71% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.5376344086 54% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 11.8709677419 51% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 3.85842293907 181% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.88709677419 82% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.14899467605 0.236089414692 63% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0440403972902 0.076458572812 58% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0392503980828 0.0737576698707 53% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0960130914501 0.150856017488 64% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0204517779639 0.0645574589148 32% => 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 11.7677419355 128% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 52.53 58.1214874552 90% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.10430107527 144% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.6 10.1575268817 124% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.03 10.9000537634 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.48 8.01818996416 106% => OK
difficult_words: 104.0 86.8835125448 120% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 10.002688172 115% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.8 10.0537634409 127% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 10.247311828 127% => 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: 73.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.0 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.