In today's society, classrooms and meetings are essential environments where people acquire knowledge. However, it is inevitable that faulty information can sometimes be delivered during the process. In my view, addressing these in accuracies with teachers or meeting facilitators after the session is the optimal solution. I believe in this approach for two key reasons.
To begin with, people could have an insightful discussion about the incorrect content after the class or meeting is over. This is because it allows the listeners to fully analyze the perceived error and prepare a cohesive argument to present afterwards. Concurrently, teachers or meeting leaders also have ample time post-session to address and communicate these concerns with the participants. A personal experience of mine serves as a compelling example of this. Last year, I noticed a discrepancy in the timeline of a historical event presented on my history teacher's slide. Initially uncertain of my own recollection, I feared that my memory of this event might be conflated with another. Therefore, I revisited my textbooks to corroborate my understanding and eventually confirmed my initial suspicion. After the class, I brought this to my teacher's attention, who appreciated my meticulous observation. Furthermore, this interaction led to a discussion about other aspects of this historical event not initially covered in class, enriching my overall understanding.
Secondly, revealing inaccuracies post-sessions embodies respect and politeness. The disruption of attenders during the process might make teachers or meeting facilitators annoyed and disrespected in public. For example, my brother was served in a technology company. However, he caught a bad reputation as he preferred to disclose other's mistakes to show off his ability in public occasions. One day, my brother confidently revealed a discrepancy of data presented in his manager's presentation. The embarrassment and shamefulness made the manager annoy and doubt my brother’s fatality. As a result, my brother was quitted and regrated his irrational behavior.
In sum, I still believe that talking about the mistakes to the lecturer after everything is over is best thing to do.
- TPO32 task1 quakers 80
- In 1995 a microscopic fungus called Phytophthora ramorum or P ramorum was first detected in the forests of the western United States P ramorum infects trees and causes particularly serious damage in oak trees in many infected oaks leaves wither rapidly la 70
- Asteroids are large space objects made of rock and ice There are hundreds of thousands of asteroids in our solar system Though we often hear ideas about establishing colonies of humans to live and work on our Moon or our neighboring planet Mars some think 3
- Starting in the 1960s and continuing until the 1980s sailors in Russian submarines patrolling the North Atlantic and Arctic Ocean would occasionally hear strange sounds These underwater noises reminded the submarine crews of frog croaks so they called the 80
- In the past it was easier to identify what type of career or job would lead to a secure successful future 73
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 98, Rule ID: THE_SUPERLATIVE[4]
Message: A determiner is probably missing here: 'is the best'.
Suggestion: is the best
...o the lecturer after everything is over is best thing to do.
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, furthermore, however, second, secondly, so, still, therefore, for example, talking about, as a result, in my view, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 15.1003584229 73% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 9.8082437276 41% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 13.8261648746 94% => OK
Relative clauses : 5.0 11.0286738351 45% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 40.0 43.0788530466 93% => OK
Preposition: 47.0 52.1666666667 90% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 8.0752688172 149% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1900.0 1977.66487455 96% => OK
No of words: 337.0 407.700716846 83% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.63798219585 4.8611393121 116% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.28457229495 4.48103885553 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.28882458371 2.67179642975 123% => OK
Unique words: 203.0 212.727598566 95% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.60237388724 0.524837075471 115% => OK
syllable_count: 608.4 618.680645161 98% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.51630824373 119% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 13.0 9.59856630824 135% => OK
Article: 3.0 3.08781362007 97% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.51792114695 57% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.86738351254 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.94265232975 101% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 20.6003584229 102% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 20.1344086022 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 27.3100116202 48.9658058833 56% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 90.4761904762 100.406767564 90% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.0476190476 20.6045352989 78% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.38095238095 5.45110844103 117% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.5376344086 18% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 11.8709677419 51% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 3.85842293907 207% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.88709677419 143% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.139760541916 0.236089414692 59% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0428262953722 0.076458572812 56% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0574154546599 0.0737576698707 78% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.100753394231 0.150856017488 67% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0364209724622 0.0645574589148 56% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.2 11.7677419355 112% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 38.31 58.1214874552 66% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.10430107527 144% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 10.1575268817 117% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.14 10.9000537634 139% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.24 8.01818996416 128% => OK
difficult_words: 124.0 86.8835125448 143% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.0 10.002688172 70% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 10.0537634409 84% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 10.247311828 117% => 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: 76.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.0 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.