Something is wrong with the fog index calculation formula.
FI = 0.4*((WPS) + 100*(NC/N))
(FI, fog index; WPS, words per sentence; NC, no. of complex words; N, total no. of words)
It denotes the number of years of formal English education (FEE) required to understand a particular text. Readers' Digest articles have an FI of 12 while texts that require near-universal understanding have an FI of 8 (to give you a picture).
How is it that a person with only 16 years of FEE as I can write with an FI reaching 60? In other words, how does 16 years of FEE for a writer seem sufficient to necessitate 60 years of FEE for a reader?
The conclusion seems easy if the parameter of "formal English education" is omitted from the consideration because, if excluded, the quality of an academic background could be held as a nullifier.
The formula seems to have only a strong empirical backing, but nothing in the way of dimensional analysis—in a metaphysical sense—seems to indicate that the proffered combination of variables is equitable to #FEE.
Showing posts with label Readers' Digest. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Readers' Digest. Show all posts
Tuesday, 17 May 2011
The handicap of the FI
Something is wrong with the fog index calculation formula.
FI = 0.4*((WPS) + 100*(NC/N))
(FI, fog index; WPS, words per sentence; NC, no. of complex words; N, total no. of words)
It denotes the number of years of formal English education (FEE) required to understand a particular text. Readers' Digest articles have an FI of 12 while texts that require near-universal understanding have an FI of 8 (to give you a picture).
How is it that a person with only 16 years of FEE as I can write with an FI reaching 60? In other words, how does 16 years of FEE for a writer seem sufficient to necessitate 60 years of FEE for a reader?
The conclusion seems easy if the parameter of "formal English education" is omitted from the consideration because, if excluded, the quality of an academic background could be held as a nullifier.
The formula seems to have only a strong empirical backing, but nothing in the way of dimensional analysis—in a metaphysical sense—seems to indicate that the proffered combination of variables is equitable to #FEE.
FI = 0.4*((WPS) + 100*(NC/N))
(FI, fog index; WPS, words per sentence; NC, no. of complex words; N, total no. of words)
It denotes the number of years of formal English education (FEE) required to understand a particular text. Readers' Digest articles have an FI of 12 while texts that require near-universal understanding have an FI of 8 (to give you a picture).
How is it that a person with only 16 years of FEE as I can write with an FI reaching 60? In other words, how does 16 years of FEE for a writer seem sufficient to necessitate 60 years of FEE for a reader?
The conclusion seems easy if the parameter of "formal English education" is omitted from the consideration because, if excluded, the quality of an academic background could be held as a nullifier.
The formula seems to have only a strong empirical backing, but nothing in the way of dimensional analysis—in a metaphysical sense—seems to indicate that the proffered combination of variables is equitable to #FEE.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)