online and printed encyclopedias
The reading and the lecture are both about online and printed encyclopedias. The author of the reading acclaim that traditional encyclopedias are worthier than online encyclopedias and provides 3 reasons of support. All these arguments are challenged by the lecturer. She is of the opinion that none of these claims is literally correct.
First of all, the writer contends that traditional encyclopedias is most accurate than online ones because they are collected by experts in this field, but in the online encyclopedias, non academic people also can make changes. The speaker challenges this argument. She says the writer of reading has bias against online encyclopedias without having more information about them. She states that not only the online encyclopedias, but also printed encyclopedias in some cases can be inaccurate. But the discrepancy between two type is that online encyclopedias can be changed but the printed encyclopedias remain with errors without eliminating them.
Secondly, the author argues that the online encyclopedias can expose by hackers because of communal nature of them. The lecturer, on the other hand, explains that this is correct, but there are some ways can protect the communal online encyclopedias from hackers. The first way is making crucial facts unchangeable and another way is employing staff for eliminating all the irrational contents that might be made by hackers.
Finally, it is stated in the article that online encyclopedias is concentrated on specific topics more than others so cause a misimpression of what are more valuable topics. The speaker, however posits with mentioning that the printed encyclopedias can not accommodate all types of topics in themselves due to limitation space, whereas the online type can be contained numerous diversity of subjects.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022-07-26 | Uttama Shekhawat | 73 | view |
| 2022-01-14 | ManishAdh | 80 | view |
| 2020-01-19 | Seyed Armin Mirhosseini | 88 | view |
| 2019-02-27 | sara.87 | 81 | view |
| 2018-06-25 | nastaran1992 | 73 | view |
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, however, if, second, secondly, so, whereas, first of all, in some cases, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 10.4613686534 182% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 5.04856512141 158% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 22.412803532 107% => OK
Preposition: 32.0 30.3222958057 106% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 5.01324503311 60% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1548.0 1373.03311258 113% => OK
No of words: 282.0 270.72406181 104% => OK
Chars per words: 5.48936170213 5.08290768461 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.09790868904 4.04702891845 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.06734104026 2.5805825403 119% => OK
Unique words: 147.0 145.348785872 101% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.521276595745 0.540411800872 96% => OK
syllable_count: 493.2 419.366225166 118% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 4.0 1.51434878587 264% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 56.4771942415 49.2860985944 115% => OK
Chars per sentence: 110.571428571 110.228320801 100% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.1428571429 21.698381199 93% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.35714285714 7.06452816374 118% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.27373068433 94% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.495504878169 0.272083759551 182% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.185272959807 0.0996497079465 186% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.134264338889 0.0662205650399 203% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.323199466735 0.162205337803 199% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.101303509623 0.0443174109184 229% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.5 13.3589403974 109% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 42.72 53.8541721854 79% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 5.55761589404 202% => Smog_index is high.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 11.0289183223 112% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.56 12.2367328918 119% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.66 8.42419426049 103% => OK
difficult_words: 72.0 63.6247240618 113% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 10.7273730684 70% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.2008830022 134% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 81.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.5 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.