debates about using a tactic called buzzing for advertisement.
Recently, there has been a ton of debates as to using a tactic called buzzing for advertisement.
Most specifically, in regards to the passage, the writer in the reading puts forth the idea that buzzers do not reveal key information about something and they just advertising some goods for money.
In the lecture, however, the buzzer is quick to point out there are some serious flaws in the writer's idea. In fact, the speaker believes there are several misunderstood between people about buzzers and addresses, in detail, the trouble with each point made in the reading test.
First and foremost, the author of the reading states that with buzzing about some products you just earn some incorrect information because the buzzer only wants to tempt you to buy.
Some professionals in the same field, however, stand in firm opposition to this claim. In the listening, the speaker states buzzers use the products that companies produce. They are not an ordinary advertiser and they being paid money for talking about some facts and information honestly.
One group of scholars represented by the writer think that since some buzzers pretend they are just private individuals, consumers listen to their talk less critically. Of course, though, not all the experts in this field believe this claim is accurate. Again, the speaker specifically addresses this claim when he states actually people ask a lot of questions and they also talk critically about the positive and negative aspects of products.
Finally, the writer wraps his argument by positing that buzzing can able to harm relationships and buzzers make people less truthful. Not surprisingly, the speaker takes issue with this claim by contending that with bad products the companies stop the crow for such good, so this approach is helpful rather than harmful.
To sum up, both the writer and lecturer hold conflicting views about buzzers and buzzing.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2021-02-02 | Elhamsarvari | 80 | view |
| 2021-01-18 | Elhamsarvari | 60 | view |
- Debates as to the story of the burning mirror that the greek navy used to attack the roman 60
- do you agree or disagree with that television advertising towards children should not be allowed 70
- tpo13 3
- The reading passage claims that the zebra mussel has long been spreading out from their habitats and believe this invasion can not be stopped and makes a lot of threat for freshwater fish However the professor in the lecture casts doubts on the points mad 76
- spending too much time on personal enjoyment 55
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 20, Rule ID: IN_REGARD_TO[1]
Message: Use simply 'regarding' or 'with regard to'.
Suggestion: regarding; with regard to
... for advertisement. Most specifically, in regards to the passage, the writer in the reading ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 95, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'writers'' or 'writer's'?
Suggestion: writers'; writer's
...out there are some serious flaws in the writers idea. In fact, the speaker believes the...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 149, Rule ID: THERE_RE_MANY[3]
Message: Possible agreement error. Did you mean 'severals'?
Suggestion: severals
...In fact, the speaker believes there are several misunderstood between people about buzz...
^^^^^^^
Line 16, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ing views about buzzers and buzzing.
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, finally, first, honestly, however, if, so, as to, in fact, of course, talking about, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 10.4613686534 86% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 1.0 5.04856512141 20% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 7.30242825607 137% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 12.0772626932 58% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 22.0 22.412803532 98% => OK
Preposition: 43.0 30.3222958057 142% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1625.0 1373.03311258 118% => OK
No of words: 312.0 270.72406181 115% => OK
Chars per words: 5.20833333333 5.08290768461 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.20279927342 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.62380612154 2.5805825403 102% => OK
Unique words: 176.0 145.348785872 121% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.564102564103 0.540411800872 104% => OK
syllable_count: 476.1 419.366225166 114% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 3.25607064018 31% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 2.5761589404 272% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 21.2450331126 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 43.3399589388 49.2860985944 88% => OK
Chars per sentence: 116.071428571 110.228320801 105% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.2857142857 21.698381199 103% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.85714285714 7.06452816374 111% => OK
Paragraphs: 8.0 4.09492273731 195% => Less paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 4.0 4.19205298013 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 4.33554083885 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.27373068433 140% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.223121280354 0.272083759551 82% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.082432855481 0.0996497079465 83% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.126686250566 0.0662205650399 191% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.127932803157 0.162205337803 79% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.149599511805 0.0443174109184 338% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.3 13.3589403974 107% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 57.61 53.8541721854 107% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 11.0289183223 97% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.23 12.2367328918 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.32 8.42419426049 99% => OK
difficult_words: 71.0 63.6247240618 112% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.498013245 103% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Maximum four paragraphs wanted.
Rates: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.0 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.