Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: Countries should not isolate themselves from the world but instead engage other countries.
More and more countries, such as Iran and Cuba, are breaking out of their isolation and starting to negotiate trade deals with other countries. This, however, leads to the discussion whether it is advantageous for countries to stop the isolation and open to other countries. In my opinion, isolated nations can only gain materialistic and non-materialistic wealth, if they engage with other nations. I feel this for two reason, which I will explore in the following essay.
First, todays grand global challenges, such as security, climate change or sustainable economy, cannot solved by one country alone rather a collaboration of many countries. For example, if China is not able to reduce its pollution until 2030, it will not only effect China but also countries on the other side of the world, such as Netherlands or Denmark. Moreover, the security of a country is only as good as its collaboration with his partner nations. Before the terrorist attack in Manchester, the British police and security agencies could stop five other terrorist attacks including a suicide attack on a German diplomat. This was only possible due to international organizations such as Interpol and Europol. Accordingly, every aspect of today’s challenges is connected and can only be overcome when countries works together.
Secondly, if countries open their boarders to other countries, people will drop their prejudices towards foreigners and will start to understand other cultures. This could automatically lead to a peaceful world. For instance, in Europe, there is peace for almost 70 years due to the intergovernmental organization, the European Union (EU). Countries opened themselves for the idea of a unified a Europe. Moreover, the EU not only stabilized the area, but also was major supporter for exchange of culture in Europe. With the freedom of traveling within Europe without a visa, the Europeans have a better understanding of each other. It is now almost unimaginable that a war between two European nations could possibly break the peace in Europe. For this reason, isolated countries should engage other countries for a peaceful world.
In conclusion, I strongly believe that it is advantageous for isolated nations to collaborate with other nations and intergovernmental organizations. This is because, todays grand challenges can only be solved together and because, it will also promote a better understanding between different cultures, which subsequently leads to a peaceful world.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 261, Rule ID: AFFECT_EFFECT[7]
Message: Did you mean 'affect'?
Suggestion: affect
... pollution until 2030, it will not only effect China but also countries on the other s...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 701, Rule ID: MAY_COULD_POSSIBLY[1]
Message: Use simply 'could'.
Suggestion: could
...that a war between two European nations could possibly break the peace in Europe. For this rea...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
accordingly, also, but, first, however, if, moreover, second, secondly, so, for example, for instance, i feel, in conclusion, such as, in my opinion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 15.1003584229 86% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 9.8082437276 133% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 13.8261648746 108% => OK
Relative clauses : 5.0 11.0286738351 45% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 24.0 43.0788530466 56% => OK
Preposition: 44.0 52.1666666667 84% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 8.0752688172 87% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2112.0 1977.66487455 107% => OK
No of words: 391.0 407.700716846 96% => OK
Chars per words: 5.40153452685 4.8611393121 111% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.44676510885 4.48103885553 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.13842110168 2.67179642975 117% => OK
Unique words: 203.0 212.727598566 95% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.519181585678 0.524837075471 99% => OK
syllable_count: 665.1 618.680645161 108% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.51630824373 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 9.59856630824 83% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.994623655914 0% => OK
Article: 5.0 3.08781362007 162% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 3.51792114695 114% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.86738351254 54% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.94265232975 101% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 20.6003584229 97% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 20.1344086022 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 39.7900427243 48.9658058833 81% => OK
Chars per sentence: 105.6 100.406767564 105% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.55 20.6045352989 95% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.4 5.45110844103 136% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.5376344086 36% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 11.8709677419 101% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 3.85842293907 130% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.88709677419 61% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.229440921035 0.236089414692 97% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0754362492526 0.076458572812 99% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0678379287796 0.0737576698707 92% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.14818607163 0.150856017488 98% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0597069568271 0.0645574589148 92% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.8 11.7677419355 117% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 43.73 58.1214874552 75% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.10430107527 144% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 10.1575268817 117% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.04 10.9000537634 129% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.62 8.01818996416 108% => OK
difficult_words: 100.0 86.8835125448 115% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 10.002688172 120% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.0537634409 95% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 10.247311828 117% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Better to have 5 paragraphs with 3 arguments. And try always support/against one side but compare two sides, like this:
para 1: introduction
para 2: reason 1. address both of the views presented for reason 1
para 3: reason 2. address both of the views presented for reason 2
para 4: reason 3. address both of the views presented for reason 3
para 5: conclusion.
So how to find out those reasons. There is a formula:
reasons == advantages or
reasons == disadvantages
for example, we can always apply 'save time', 'save/make money', 'find a job', 'make friends', 'get more information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.
or we can apply 'waste time', 'waste money', 'no job', 'make bad friends', 'get bad information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.
Rates: 73.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.0 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.