Preserve historic buildings
In the lecture, the professor made several points about the building preservation. The professor argues that in some buildings in Chicago was converted to have another use, unsuccessfully. Nevertheless, the reading states that the preservation of the buildings in Chicago was successful. The professor's lecture cast doubt on the reading by using a number of points that are contrary to that view.
The first point that the professor uses to cast doubt on the reading is the restoration of the building of the Chicago Theater. The educator expresses that in Chicago was renovated two theater buildings, one of them was a success, however, the second one not. The unsuccessful restoration of the buildings differs from the reading in the reading states that the renovated buildings in Chicago were converted into a shopping mall and in live theater. The point made by the faculty member cast doubt on the reading because only one theater was successful in its renovation.
Another point that the professor uses to cast doubt on the reading is the train station. The lecturer claims that the buildings that are preserved are beautiful, but they are empty. Additionally, the building is not functional. The example that the professor gave was that the walls were too strong and the wireless doesn't work because the signal cannot go through the apartments. Nevertheless, the reading expresses that other buildings were renovated to a dramatic, attractive apartment that preserves the historical exterior. This point is contradicted by the lecture because the instructor argues that the buildings are empty and it is very expensive to live there due to the heat and cooling billings.
In a word owing to the aforementioned causes and elucidations described above, it appears to be reasonable to draw the well-founded conclusion that the points made in the lecture are contrary to the reading. The cost, maintenance, and usability of the renovated buildings demonstrate that the points made on the reading are in doubt.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2018-11-12 | ximena.barroso@gmail.com | 73 | view |
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 129, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...of the building of the Chicago Theater. The educator expresses that in Chicago was ...
^^^
Line 3, column 261, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...a success, however, the second one not. The unsuccessful restoration of the buildin...
^^^
Line 3, column 452, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...o a shopping mall and in live theater. The point made by the faculty member cast d...
^^^
Line 5, column 317, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
... walls were too strong and the wireless doesnt work because the signal cannot go throu...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, if, nevertheless, second, so, well
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 10.4613686534 210% => Less to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 1.0 5.04856512141 20% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 12.0772626932 141% => OK
Pronoun: 23.0 22.412803532 103% => OK
Preposition: 43.0 30.3222958057 142% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 5.01324503311 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1699.0 1373.03311258 124% => OK
No of words: 325.0 270.72406181 120% => OK
Chars per words: 5.22769230769 5.08290768461 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.24591054749 4.04702891845 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.95448710995 2.5805825403 114% => OK
Unique words: 137.0 145.348785872 94% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.421538461538 0.540411800872 78% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 520.2 419.366225166 124% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 14.0 8.23620309051 170% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 13.0662251656 122% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 41.0150505912 49.2860985944 83% => OK
Chars per sentence: 106.1875 110.228320801 96% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.3125 21.698381199 94% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.4375 7.06452816374 49% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 4.19205298013 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.27373068433 70% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.255786463581 0.272083759551 94% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.11047265573 0.0996497079465 111% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.113360717783 0.0662205650399 171% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.164924670792 0.162205337803 102% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.103134938225 0.0443174109184 233% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.4 13.3589403974 100% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 53.8541721854 95% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 11.0289183223 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.05 12.2367328918 107% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.84 8.42419426049 93% => OK
difficult_words: 66.0 63.6247240618 104% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 10.7273730684 79% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
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.