The reading and the lecture are both about the value of television appearances by university professors. The author of the reading argues that it is very worthwhile for academics to make such appearances. The lecturer casts doubt on the claims made in the article. He believes that these appearances are not particularly useful.
First of all, the author claims that television appearances help university professors broaden their audience, and also help them to be viewed as experts in their subjects by more people than ever before. The author believes that this can increase their importance as academic professionals. This point is challenged by the lecturer. He says that professors who go on television are viewed by their peers as entertainers rather than as true educators. The lecturer claims that being a celebrity could even affect their ability to get funding for their work.
Secondly, the author states that television appearances can be beneficial for the universities themselves. It is argued that the prestige of the university is increased when one of their faculty makes a high profile media appearance. The lecturer rebuts this argument. He suggests that universities can suffer because celebrity professors do not have much time for their research and students. He argues that rather than carrying out their duties, they spend a lot of time rehearsing, traveling and getting made-up for their appearances.
Finally, the author mentions that there is a net benefit to the public when a professor appears in the media. It is suggested that television is usually quite shallow and that professors can provide a very useful remedy to this problem. The lecturer, on the other hand, feels that television networks do not want to present meaningful content. He says that the abbreviated presentations that professors give on television are no more useful than what a regular reporter could deliver.
- Rembrandt s painting 68
- Integrated writing TPO40 65
- Burning coal in power plants produces a waste product called coal ash a material that contains small amounts of potentially harmful chemicals Environmentalists in the United States are concerned about the damage such harmful chemicals may be doing to the 3
- Tpo30 Integrated 73
- Some people believe car should be developed at a smaller size in the future some think it would be more beneficial for cars to be smaller in the future Which of the two pathways would you prefer and why 73
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 208, 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.
...or academics to make such appearances. The lecturer casts doubt on the claims made...
^^^
Line 2, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...pearances are not particularly useful. First of all, the author claims that tel...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 220, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...bjects by more people than ever before. The author believes that this can increa...
^^
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ability to get funding for their work. Secondly, the author states that televis...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...getting made-up for their appearances. Finally, the author mentions that there ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, second, secondly, so, while, first of all, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 10.4613686534 134% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 19.0 12.0772626932 157% => OK
Pronoun: 42.0 22.412803532 187% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 27.0 30.3222958057 89% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1612.0 1373.03311258 117% => OK
No of words: 306.0 270.72406181 113% => OK
Chars per words: 5.26797385621 5.08290768461 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.18244613648 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.89698094775 2.5805825403 112% => OK
Unique words: 158.0 145.348785872 109% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.516339869281 0.540411800872 96% => OK
syllable_count: 504.9 419.366225166 120% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 3.25607064018 276% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 13.0662251656 138% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 21.2450331126 80% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 38.9371129571 49.2860985944 79% => OK
Chars per sentence: 89.5555555556 110.228320801 81% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.0 21.698381199 78% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.83333333333 7.06452816374 68% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 4.19205298013 119% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 4.33554083885 254% => Less positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.27373068433 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.247553967992 0.272083759551 91% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0747897805084 0.0996497079465 75% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0523242129713 0.0662205650399 79% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.150952081212 0.162205337803 93% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0310240416321 0.0443174109184 70% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.9 13.3589403974 89% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 54.22 53.8541721854 101% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.0289183223 90% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.99 12.2367328918 106% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.45 8.42419426049 100% => OK
difficult_words: 77.0 63.6247240618 121% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.498013245 84% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 78.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.5 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.