a
There is a constant discussion of the traits of cooperation and competition, and to which extent the two complement or discourage one another. For the leading figures in society, whether they be leaders in private or public sectors, this question becomes particularly relevant, particulrly when it comes to educate the next generation that will ultimately take its place. While the virtues of cooperation are clearly beneficial in many settings, society is unlikely to gain on an aggregate level from artificially trying to instill a sense of cooperation in young people, prioritizing it over the trait of competitiveness.
If we consider an individual in a public position, particuarly in government, we would clearly prefer that she be cooperative rather than competitive, as that would work in the public interest. The analogous argument could be made for business leaders to make sure that its practices are ethical. However, individuals cannot reach such a position of power without first undertaking, and conquering, major competitive challenges, and therefore it is simply unrealistic for any individual that they should reach such a position in the first place if they are also not simultaneously trained in the competitive traits. Arguing that young people should be instilled in a cooperative rather than a competitive sense because this will serve them as leaders is, consequently, like teaching them how to handle subordinate employees without teaching them how to become a manager in the first place.
Of course, this is not to say that cooperation is void of merits. Indeed, particularly disagreeable people, that are the most likely to be competetitve, could benefit from a marginal increase of cooperation the most. It could therefore be argued, as disagreeable people are also those who are likely to climb the competitive corporate or public office ladder, that instilling them with a dose of cooperation would have a high benefit. However, this argument would need to assume that this sample is representative for the population, or that the effect on the rest of the population does not offset this effect. On an aggregated level, this is unlikely to be true. Just like some overly competitive people would benefit from more compassion, some overly compassionate people would benefit from being more competitive and find themselves in the reverse situation. Therefore, prioritizing one over the other is unlikely to benefit the population as a whole on this particular matter.
On the whole, both competition and cooperation have their merits, but we cannot create the leaders that we need only from a sense of cooperation, as the people that will reach those positions in the first place will inevitably be those that have no problems competing in the first place. Just like they might benefit from more cooperation, there are overly cooperative people who would benefit from being more competitive, to take them into the game in the first place. Therefore, it is ultimately not desirable to prioritize cooperation over competition for young people as a whole, but it is unique to each individual the trait that she would best benefit from improving.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... it over the trait of competitiveness. If we consider an individual in a public...
^^^
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...o become a manager in the first place. Of course, this is not to say that coope...
^^^
Line 4, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... as a whole on this particular matter. On the whole, both competition and coope...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, consequently, first, however, if, so, still, therefore, while, of course, on the whole, in the first place
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 28.0 19.5258426966 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 22.0 12.4196629213 177% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 14.8657303371 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 19.0 11.3162921348 168% => OK
Pronoun: 51.0 33.0505617978 154% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 66.0 58.6224719101 113% => OK
Nominalization: 26.0 12.9106741573 201% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2669.0 2235.4752809 119% => OK
No of words: 508.0 442.535393258 115% => OK
Chars per words: 5.25393700787 5.05705443957 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.74751043592 4.55969084622 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.05467858982 2.79657885939 109% => OK
Unique words: 221.0 215.323595506 103% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.435039370079 0.4932671777 88% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 871.2 704.065955056 124% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 6.24550561798 144% => OK
Article: 1.0 4.99550561798 20% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 3.10617977528 161% => OK
Conjunction: 6.0 1.77640449438 338% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 5.0 4.38483146067 114% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 20.2370786517 84% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 29.0 23.0359550562 126% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 72.8019544207 60.3974514979 121% => OK
Chars per sentence: 157.0 118.986275619 132% => OK
Words per sentence: 29.8823529412 23.4991977007 127% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.88235294118 5.21951772744 132% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 7.80617977528 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 10.2758426966 117% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 5.13820224719 78% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.83258426966 21% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0 0.243740707755 0% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0 0.0831039109588 0% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0758088955206 0% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0 0.150359130593 0% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0667264976115 0% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 18.2 14.1392134831 129% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 33.58 48.8420337079 69% => OK
smog_index: 13.0 7.92365168539 164% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.8 12.1743820225 130% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.76 12.1639044944 113% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.49 8.38706741573 101% => OK
difficult_words: 110.0 100.480337079 109% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 16.0 11.8971910112 134% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.6 11.2143820225 121% => OK
text_standard: 16.0 11.7820224719 136% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Better to have 5/6 paragraphs with 3/4 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: reason 4. address both of the views presented for reason 4 (optional)
para 6: conclusion.
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 16.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 Out of 6
---------------------
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.