The reading passage and the lecturer are both about the usefulness of communal online communal encyclopedias. The author of the reading passage feels that there various problems that reduce the value of communal online encyclopedias. The speaker challenges this claim. He is of the opinion that communal online encyclopedias are more valuable than traditional, printed encyclopedias.
First of all, the writer argues that communal online encyclopedias lack truthfulness from the academic community. In the article, it is mentioned that printed encyclopedias are prepared by the team of experts, as a result, they are more reliable. This point is challenged by the lecturer. He says that in communal online encyclopedias, it is easy to make adjustments in case if there is any error, which is not possible in the printed materials.
Secondly, the writer suggests that even if the original content of the communal online encyclopedias is correct, it is modified by other people such as hackers, vandals, and unscrupulous users, which reduce the validity of the available materials on online. This argument is rebutted by the speaker. He says that communal online encyclopedias used different strategies to prevent hacking. He mentions that they use different features such as read-only format that reduces the chances of hacking. Similarly, they employ editor to check whether their materials are authentic or not so that the chance of finding authentic materials on communal online encyclopedias is high.
Finally, the author posits that old traditional printed encyclopedias contain the most essential information only, which is decided by the experts. In contrast, the speaker says that in the communal online encyclopedias there are no problems of space so that includes all the required information for the readers of different backgrounds.
- TPO 29Large numbers of dinosaur fossils have been discovered in deposits on Alaska s North Slope a region that today experiences an extremely cold arctic climate One hundred million years ago when those dinosaurs were alive the environment of the Nort 68
- 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
- TOEFL Sample essay integrated essay from TPO6
- Playing computer games is a waste of time Children should not be allowed to play them 3
- 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
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 235, 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.
...value of communal online encyclopedias. The speaker challenges this claim. He is of...
^^^
Line 3, column 438, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ns that they use different features such as read-only format that reduces the cha...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, if, second, secondly, similarly, so, then, in contrast, such as, as a result, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 10.4613686534 163% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 0.0 5.04856512141 0% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 7.30242825607 41% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 17.0 12.0772626932 141% => OK
Pronoun: 28.0 22.412803532 125% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 30.0 30.3222958057 99% => 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: 1563.0 1373.03311258 114% => OK
No of words: 284.0 270.72406181 105% => OK
Chars per words: 5.50352112676 5.08290768461 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.10515524023 4.04702891845 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.09299069674 2.5805825403 120% => OK
Unique words: 139.0 145.348785872 96% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.489436619718 0.540411800872 91% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 498.6 419.366225166 119% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.55342163355 116% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 11.0 3.25607064018 338% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 57.7929638163 49.2860985944 117% => OK
Chars per sentence: 104.2 110.228320801 95% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.9333333333 21.698381199 87% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.4 7.06452816374 105% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 4.33554083885 208% => Less positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.27373068433 23% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0 0.272083759551 0% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0 0.0996497079465 0% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0662205650399 0% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0 0.162205337803 0% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0443174109184 0% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.9 13.3589403974 104% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 36.28 53.8541721854 67% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 11.0289183223 115% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.62 12.2367328918 119% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.81 8.42419426049 105% => OK
difficult_words: 77.0 63.6247240618 121% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 10.7273730684 70% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 3.33333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.