The “Robo-readers” DO NOT have the same abilities as an
individual reading the paper. As it states in source B, ‘les Perelman tells
students not to waste time worrying about whether their facts are accurate,
since pretty much any fact will do as long as it is incorporated into a
well-structured sentence, “E-rater doesn’t care if you say War of 1812 started
in 1945.” Right there it says that these
Robo-readers are ineffective, by having a sentence well-structured but, about a
completely different topic is better than having a sentence poorly written
about the topic given. That is not right. Later in source B it states that the
e-rater prefers longer essays, a 716-word poorly written essay gets a 6, when a
well-written essay of 567 words gets a 5.
Another point that says these e-raters, Robo-readers, are ineffective,
allowing a paper with more words that are off topic to get a higher score, than
a well-written paper with less but logical words to get a less score. The Last
red flag is that the e-Rater ‘prefers’ larger words, ‘egregious’ is better that
‘bad’. These e-Raters, Robo-readers, may
grade 16,000 essays in 20 seconds but, if there are essays in there that are
long, with no relevance to the topic getting a better score than a relevant,
yet short essay, that isn’t right. An individual may only read five papers in
an hour but, will score everything as it’s seen well-written gets a better
score than a poorly-written paper.
