Can anyone help me revise this essay to make the language better?


The lecture made by a buzzer himself largely opposes the points made in the reading. In the first place, he says it's unfair to conclude that there is no truth in buzzing, as stated in the reading. People who are hired by companies to act as buzzers are the ones who really have used their products or services and think highly of them. So buzzers don't have to own the motive to mislead consumers to make money, thus their words may be trustworthy.

Secondly, contrary to the claim those consumers are less on guard when facing buzzers who are just individuals as well. It is said by the man, however, that people tend to ask all kinds of questions to buzzers instead of sitting back and taking all their words as true. Because consumers would like to know information such as whether this man who is praising the product really know about it or whether I can get promise to be serviced well after buying it from the person who has really used the product. That's why the chance that consumers being lobbied into buying things without much forethought.

Finally, according to the man, it's totally nonsense to say buzzing would causing any harm to human relationship. His reason is based on his other points. Given that products bought through buzzers are not necessarily bad, sometimes quite good instead, said the man, consumers would be more likely to trust people after using products recommended by buzzers. As a result, social relationships would actually be strengthened due to the trust and honesty spread in the process of buzzing.

In conclusion, people are not going to be lied and they may still be critical towards products being buzzed. Besides, the potential good consuming experience can make people more trustful of others in the future. All these points say the opposite of the reading.