Do you agree or disagree? People nowadays are more willing to help other people (giving
Food or clothing) than in the past.
In today's convoluted and competitive world, it becomes a highly charged and hot debate topic whether compared to people living in the past, nowadays, people are more willing to help others or not. Therefore, some people are the leading proponent of the claim that based on the current situation, people are helping others more than in the past. However, some others may take an opposite point of view and believe that people were more willing to assist others in the past. If I have to face these two choices, I tend to choose the latter idea.
To begin with, nowadays, people do not have adequate time to help others. To elaborate on, owing to an arduous situation of life that is becoming difficult more and more, people are staggered by their tasks, works, and other activities. Hence, since they are really busy scheduled, they cannot find any free time on others, even for their family members. In contrast, people living in the past, since they had a great deal of spare time, they could allocate a lot of time to poor people in order to meet their basic needs. An example will illustrate this viewpoint much better. Last week, I went to the airport to take my grandfather who came to visit us. Then, during the distance to back our home, he saw a plenty of homeless people, and finally, he told me that what is happening, why we did not have any homeless in the past, and why no one help them, and therefore, I understood people help others more in past . For this reason, since people are overwhelmed with their own issues, they do not have enough time to help others needing the food and clothing.
Apart from being tight scheduled, the second debatable point is that on the one hand, some people believe that, nowadays, people help the charities, and they cannot help poor people directly. On the other hand, some others believe that people are more willing to save their money in order to travel, buy house, car and so on. I take the former viewpoint with a pinch of salt and claim that the latter viewpoint is much closer to the reality. To elucidate, based on facilities of our today's world, people are more willing to release their stress and tension by the money they earned. By way of illustration a recent empirical study conducted by some tourism companies, which catch you off guard, reveals that the percentage of people going to other countries to order to travel cannot be compared to the past. As a result, the more the facilities will increase, the more people want to experience them to be able to have a better life on account of the fact that it will not remain any money to buy food or clothing for others.
To wrap it up, by considering all aforementioned reasons, one soon realizes, these days, people are not willing to help others inasmuch as in the first place, owing to being tight scheduled, they do not have enough time to help others, as in the second place, they like to save their money to exploit the facilities in order to recover themselves mentally and physically.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 909, Rule ID: IN_PAST[1]
Message: Did you mean: 'in the past'?
Suggestion: in the past
...e, I understood people help others more in past . For this reason, since people are ove...
^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 916, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Don't put a space before the full stop
Suggestion: .
...derstood people help others more in past . For this reason, since people are overw...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, first, hence, however, if, may, really, second, so, then, therefore, apart from, in contrast, as a result, to begin with, in the first place, in the second place, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 15.1003584229 119% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 9.8082437276 82% => OK
Conjunction : 16.0 13.8261648746 116% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 11.0286738351 109% => OK
Pronoun: 50.0 43.0788530466 116% => OK
Preposition: 92.0 52.1666666667 176% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 8.0752688172 62% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2484.0 1977.66487455 126% => OK
No of words: 536.0 407.700716846 131% => OK
Chars per words: 4.63432835821 4.8611393121 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.81161862636 4.48103885553 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.36490124319 2.67179642975 89% => OK
Unique words: 246.0 212.727598566 116% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.458955223881 0.524837075471 87% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 784.8 618.680645161 127% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.51630824373 99% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 13.0 9.59856630824 135% => OK
Article: 4.0 3.08781362007 130% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 3.51792114695 171% => OK
Conjunction: 5.0 1.86738351254 268% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 16.0 4.94265232975 324% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 20.6003584229 92% => OK
Sentence length: 28.0 20.1344086022 139% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 74.2316879123 48.9658058833 152% => OK
Chars per sentence: 130.736842105 100.406767564 130% => OK
Words per sentence: 28.2105263158 20.6045352989 137% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.94736842105 5.45110844103 182% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.5376344086 36% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 11.8709677419 93% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 3.85842293907 78% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.88709677419 102% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.422790807382 0.236089414692 179% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.147441701885 0.076458572812 193% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0993585183207 0.0737576698707 135% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.285572321026 0.150856017488 189% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0962339375726 0.0645574589148 149% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.5 11.7677419355 123% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 51.52 58.1214874552 89% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.10430107527 51% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.0 10.1575268817 128% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 9.87 10.9000537634 91% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.71 8.01818996416 96% => OK
difficult_words: 91.0 86.8835125448 105% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.002688172 105% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.2 10.0537634409 131% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 10.247311828 127% => 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: 71.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 21.5 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.