The reading and the lecture are both about the impact of professors appearing on television programs giving expert commentary. The author of the reading believes that these appearances are of great importance to professors, their universities and also to the general public. The lecturer undermines the claims made by the author. She is questioning whether anybody enjoys any benefit with this.
To begin with, the author argues that appearing on television increases the reputation of those professors from the authorities related to their field. The article mentions that, many people outside the professor's scope get aware of him through this medium. The lecturer, however rebuts this by mentioning that this leads to consider him as not a serious scholar but as an entertainer. She points out that this will prevent them from being invited to important meetings on the academic arenas and those professors will not get enough funding for research in return tarnishing their reputation.
Secondly, the author argues that universities of those professors will also benefit with the higher recognition of their faculty members. The article also says that the recognition built up from those appearances brings more donations to those universities. The specific argument is challenged by the lecturer. She claims that universities and their students have to face difficult situations regarding the delivery of courses and research output with this. Moreover, she notes that appearing in those programs waste the time they could have been utilized to improve teaching and meeting students.
Finally, the author posits that even the general public enjoy the benefits of these appearances with the opportunity that they get to learn from experts. In contrast the lecturer's position is that in depth knowledge is not shared during those programs. He elaborates that only the background or a brief introduction is provided by those professors during these programs making it not different from a scenario where a TV reporter presents those facts.
- A teacher’s ability to relate well with students is more important thanexcellent knowledge of the subject being taught.Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer 76
- professors appearing on tv programs 80
- The following is taken from a memo from the advertising director of the Super Screen Movie Production Company."According to a recent report from our marketing department, during the past year, fewer people attended Super Screen-produced movies than i 69
- Young people enjoy life more than older people do.Do you agree or disagree? 76
- A nation should require all of its students to study the same national curriculum until they enter college. 66
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 260, Rule ID: GENERAL_XX[1]
Message: Use simply 'public'.
Suggestion: public
...ors, their universities and also to the general public. The lecturer undermines the claims mad...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 276, 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.
...rsities and also to the general public. The lecturer undermines the claims made by ...
^^^
Line 5, column 76, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...iversities of those professors will also benefit with the higher recognition of t...
^^
Line 7, column 42, Rule ID: GENERAL_XX[1]
Message: Use simply 'public'.
Suggestion: public
...inally, the author posits that even the general public enjoy the benefits of these appearances...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 159, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[2]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: contrast,
...hat they get to learn from experts. In contrast the lecturers position is that in depth...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, however, if, moreover, regarding, second, secondly, so, in contrast, of course, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 10.4613686534 86% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 7.30242825607 110% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 12.0772626932 116% => OK
Pronoun: 47.0 22.412803532 210% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 48.0 30.3222958057 158% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 5.01324503311 160% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1732.0 1373.03311258 126% => OK
No of words: 319.0 270.72406181 118% => OK
Chars per words: 5.42946708464 5.08290768461 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.22617688928 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.77133717642 2.5805825403 107% => OK
Unique words: 174.0 145.348785872 120% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.545454545455 0.540411800872 101% => OK
syllable_count: 530.1 419.366225166 126% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 3.25607064018 184% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 13.0662251656 122% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 43.3214727358 49.2860985944 88% => OK
Chars per sentence: 108.25 110.228320801 98% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.9375 21.698381199 92% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.0625 7.06452816374 100% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 4.19205298013 119% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 4.33554083885 185% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => 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: 0.247128202552 0.272083759551 91% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0747517512837 0.0996497079465 75% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0825071844179 0.0662205650399 125% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.157023463035 0.162205337803 97% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0315653992432 0.0443174109184 71% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.1 13.3589403974 106% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 43.73 53.8541721854 81% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 11.0289183223 108% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.21 12.2367328918 116% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.84 8.42419426049 105% => OK
difficult_words: 86.0 63.6247240618 135% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 10.7273730684 84% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.