Communal encyclopaedia
Both the reading and the lecture are about the attractiveness of online encyclopaedias and the factors that limit its usage. While the author advocates that negative results outweighs positive impact, the lecturer casts doubt on the claims made in the article. She claims that negative effect is greatly exaggerated.
Firstly, as the first limiting factor the writer states the lack of academic credentials of editors of online encyclopaedias, which make their contribution far less reliable. By the way of contrast, the lecturer posits that errors are also common in traditional format of books. Moreover, she points out that the simplicity of making changes in the online format make it a better source of information than the printed books, where the errors may be present for decades. This counters the first author’s point.
Secondly, according to the reading passage the threats in the face of hackers from the outside bring additional troubles in using the online format. The lecturer declined with this statement either. She contends that the online sources use two strategies in order to protect themselves from possible attacks. Those strategies include the use of format which cannot be changed and the regular monitoring of articles from special employees, who work as day-to-day editors. Therefore, the professor’s point is opposed to that of the author’s in the reading passage.
Thirdly, the text elaborates on the fact that communal encyclopaedias concentrate mostly on the popular topics, missing several important data. However, the woman disagrees with this statement. She claims that online format has unlimited space and allows to focus deeply in the topics. Indeed, the books have insufficient space and should be focused primarily on the most important facts of the topics. In addition, the greater diversity of view and articles faster the reliability and popularity of communal encyclopaedias.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-07-11 | keisham | 83 | view |
| 2020-12-26 | Winner_007 | 80 | view |
| 2020-12-26 | Winner_007 | 70 | view |
| 2020-10-11 | alex2110 | 85 | view |
| 2019-12-04 | Luis Cortes | 86 | view |
- The extended family grandparents cousins aunts and uncles is less important now than it was in the past 90
- Altruism is a type of behaviour in which 80
- In twenty years there will be fewer cars in use than there are today 76
- The wooly mammoth was a prehistoric animal that resembled an elephant and lived during the Ica Age Some versions of the species are known to have survived until 6000 BCE Its extinction is best explained by a combination of climate change and over hunting 80
- Thousands of animals currently reside in zoos around the world Recently there has been much debate about the value of zoos in today s world Careful consideration of the facts reveals that zoos are unethical and should be closed First defenders of zoos say 80
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 256, Rule ID: ALLOW_TO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'focusing', 'focussing'? Or maybe you should add a pronoun? In active voice, 'allow' + 'to' takes an object, usually a pronoun.
Suggestion: focusing; focussing
...e format has unlimited space and allows to focus deeply in the topics. Indeed, the books...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, however, may, moreover, second, secondly, so, therefore, third, thirdly, while, in addition, by the way
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 7.0 10.4613686534 67% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 5.04856512141 59% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 12.0772626932 108% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 22.412803532 94% => OK
Preposition: 42.0 30.3222958057 139% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1629.0 1373.03311258 119% => OK
No of words: 299.0 270.72406181 110% => OK
Chars per words: 5.44816053512 5.08290768461 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.1583189471 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.85619903971 2.5805825403 111% => OK
Unique words: 177.0 145.348785872 122% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.591973244147 0.540411800872 110% => OK
syllable_count: 503.1 419.366225166 120% => 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: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 13.0662251656 130% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 21.2450331126 80% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 43.7647058824 49.2860985944 89% => OK
Chars per sentence: 95.8235294118 110.228320801 87% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.5882352941 21.698381199 81% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.64705882353 7.06452816374 108% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => 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: 4.0 4.27373068433 94% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.103229680762 0.272083759551 38% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0317639191342 0.0996497079465 32% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0746561344405 0.0662205650399 113% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0619973547818 0.162205337803 38% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0734595453729 0.0443174109184 166% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.0 13.3589403974 97% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 45.76 53.8541721854 85% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 11.0289183223 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.03 12.2367328918 115% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.76 8.42419426049 116% => OK
difficult_words: 100.0 63.6247240618 157% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 10.7273730684 84% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.498013245 84% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 70.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 21.0 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.