ets.2
Both the lecturer and article offer two opposing views on the consequence of the professors' appearance on the TV shows. While the reading part lists three groups which benefit from this show, the professor counters these specific points and presents some clues to call into the question for the information mentioned in the article.
First of all, the lecture posits that this show is beneficial for the professor's reputation since the television covers the wide range of the people. However, the instructor challenges the accuracy of this claim. As she asserts, the TV program is not for the professor's fame, inasmuch as the professor does entertain rather than educate. Therefore, this show declines the professor's status; besides, in this condition, the professor would not gain the sufficient financial support for his academic research. Or he would not be able to participate in the scientific conference to present his academic achievement.
Next, the passage contends that the university benefits from this appearance by the forceful monetary advocate or high rate of the student applicants. On the contrary, the professor dismisses the validity of this assumption. Based on her evidence, the TV show requires the huge amount of time for the preparation; thereby the professor should allocate his time for this time-consuming activity rather than for the academic activities such as the doing research, participating in the university's meeting, or the university's business. Consequently, this scheme is an advantageous for the university neither.
Finally, the text proposes that the individuals who watch the show take advantage of this program too. On the other hand, the professor casts doubts on the accuracy of this surmise. As she declares, the tv does not demonstrate the profound information; it solely covers the shallow aspect and titles of the data to be attractive. As long as the program does not illustrate the professors' accurate, in-depth insights, it is not informative from that aspect. In addition, the well-worked reporter could do the same job as the professor. Thus, the program does not inform the audiences about the taste of real expertise as expected at the reading passage.
- Do you agree or disagree with the statement that teachers performance should be evaluated by students rather than by other teachers 85
- Do you agree or not with the statement that a leader should have strong opinions and not change his/he opinions? 70
- Some people believe that college students should consider only their own talents and interests when choosing a field of study. Others believe that college students should base their choice of a field of study on the availability of jobs in that field.Writ 66
- TPO 21 - integrated writing 83
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Students who keep rooms their neat and organized are more successful than those who do not. 70
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 82, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'professors'' or 'professor's'?
Suggestion: professors'; professor's
...pposing views on the consequence of the professors appearance on the TV shows. While the r...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 71, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'professors'' or 'professor's'?
Suggestion: professors'; professor's
...ts that this show is beneficial for the professors reputation since the television covers ...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 260, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'professors'' or 'professor's'?
Suggestion: professors'; professor's
... asserts, the TV program is not for the professors fame, inasmuch as the professor does en...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 373, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'professors'' or 'professor's'?
Suggestion: professors'; professor's
...cate. Therefore, this show declines the professors status; besides, in this condition, the...
^^^^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['besides', 'consequently', 'finally', 'first', 'however', 'if', 'so', 'therefore', 'thus', 'well', 'while', 'in addition', 'such as', 'first of all', 'on the contrary', 'on the other hand']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.25831202046 0.261695866417 99% => OK
Verbs: 0.117647058824 0.158904122519 74% => OK
Adjectives: 0.076726342711 0.0723426182421 106% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0511508951407 0.0435111971325 118% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0230179028133 0.0277247811725 83% => OK
Prepositions: 0.130434782609 0.128828473217 101% => OK
Participles: 0.0153452685422 0.0370669169778 41% => Some participles wanted.
Conjunctions: 2.93038271513 2.5805825403 114% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0102301790281 0.0208969081088 49% => Some infinitives wanted.
Particles: 0.0 0.00154638098197 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.18925831202 0.128158765124 148% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0102301790281 0.0158828679856 64% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.00511508951407 0.0114777025283 45% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2220.0 1645.83664459 135% => OK
No of words: 350.0 271.125827815 129% => OK
Chars per words: 6.34285714286 6.08160592843 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.32530772707 4.04852973271 107% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.385714285714 0.374372842146 103% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.337142857143 0.287516216867 117% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.285714285714 0.187439937562 152% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.18 0.113142543107 159% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.93038271513 2.5805825403 114% => OK
Unique words: 191.0 145.348785872 131% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.545714285714 0.539623497131 101% => OK
Word variations: 59.5387996929 53.8517498576 111% => OK
How many sentences: 17.0 13.0529801325 130% => OK
Sentence length: 20.5882352941 21.7502111507 95% => OK
Sentence length SD: 58.9321350351 49.3711431718 119% => OK
Chars per sentence: 130.588235294 132.220823453 99% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.5882352941 21.7502111507 95% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.941176470588 0.878197800319 107% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 3.39072847682 118% => OK
Readability: 54.3025210084 50.5018328374 108% => OK
Elegance: 2.10666666667 1.90840788429 110% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0 0.549887131256 0% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.144932749827 0.142949733639 101% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0552295697933 0.0787303798458 70% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.680700819549 0.631733273073 108% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.115802543803 0.139662658121 83% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0 0.266732575781 0% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.103435571967 0% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.629919995033 0.414875509568 152% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0518207647265 0.0530846634433 98% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0 0.40443939384 0% => The content is off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0528353158467 0% => The ideas may be duplicated in paragraphs.
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 4.33554083885 231% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 4.45695364238 22% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.26048565121 141% => OK
Positive topic words: 6.0 3.49668874172 172% => OK
Negative topic words: 1.0 3.62251655629 28% => More negative topic words wanted.
Neutral topic words: 6.0 3.1766004415 189% => OK
Total topic words: 13.0 10.2958057395 126% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 86.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 26.0 Out of 30
---------------------
Note: This is not the final score. 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.