The best way to understand the character of a society is to examine the character of the men and women that the society chooses as its heroes or its role models.
Any society occupied a diverse groups of population--and characterized by different races, ethnicity and religion. The criteria for the selection of any leader or any role model depends on the basis of attitude and perceptions of the people. It may vary- among the people of developed and developing countries accordingly and under the different circumstances. The speaker overlooks the concept of egalitarian and asserts the claim as heroes and role models potrays any society we live in.
First of all, beginning with the condition of less developed or developing countries where role mode were choosen on the basis of the capacity or the concept of egalitarianity. For example--there is a condition of different criteria to be selected as a president in society --like some society or any community group rotates the presidency in the basis of caste--or the major dominancy group of any society--or from the aristocrats belongings. Here, these several cases illustrate that any role model or heroes of any society depends upon the different criteria and it does not or cannot highlight the actual pictures of any society in the less developed countries.
Secondly, in the constituents assembly of the developing countries like Nepal, India have selected one-third of the members of it's assembly on the basis egalitaranity concept --on the basis of races, gender, ethnicity, etc; while remaining two-third were selected on the basis of direct electoral system. The members who were selected in the form of quotas or any previliges group cannot features or demonstrate the charactersticks of his / her society. As majority of the members who were selected on the basis of quotas system were not equally qualified as comparision to other members. These types of members also sometimes felt guilt for their country; when they were participating in any international and national seminars, conferences and meetings due to their incipient condition.
In third, when talking about the developed countries, majority of the persons were sophisticated and they were wary and select their role model or heroes as a condition of pragmatism. They were not insular as a types of less developed countries and select their role model for the sustainability.
In conclusion, selection of these role models of any society varies upon different circumstances. Due to the parochial attitude of the people in less developed countries, they always perceived to get the chances by each and every person for the leadership activities; even if they were not qualified; and this types of attitudes leads to always remains in the same condition. While the ration thinking of the developed countries always choose their role models; tends to be a perfect-- and only can picture society
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 32, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[2]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'group'?
Suggestion: group
Any society occupied a diverse groups of population--and characterized by dif...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 18, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'constituents'' or 'constituent's'?
Suggestion: constituents'; constituent's
...developed countries. Secondly, in the constituents assembly of the developing countries li...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 210, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[1]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'a type' or simply 'types'?
Suggestion: a type; types
...of pragmatism. They were not insular as a types of less developed countries and select ...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
accordingly, also, first, if, look, may, second, secondly, so, third, while, for example, in conclusion, talking about, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 19.5258426966 67% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 12.4196629213 32% => OK
Conjunction : 27.0 14.8657303371 182% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 11.3162921348 53% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 21.0 33.0505617978 64% => OK
Preposition: 68.0 58.6224719101 116% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 12.9106741573 62% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2328.0 2235.4752809 104% => OK
No of words: 440.0 442.535393258 99% => OK
Chars per words: 5.29090909091 5.05705443957 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.57997565096 4.55969084622 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.0428017077 2.79657885939 109% => OK
Unique words: 196.0 215.323595506 91% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.445454545455 0.4932671777 90% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 762.3 704.065955056 108% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 6.24550561798 80% => OK
Article: 3.0 4.99550561798 60% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 3.10617977528 193% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.38483146067 68% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 20.2370786517 79% => 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: 27.0 23.0359550562 117% => OK
Sentence length SD: 62.8875173922 60.3974514979 104% => OK
Chars per sentence: 145.5 118.986275619 122% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.5 23.4991977007 117% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.25 5.21951772744 158% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 7.80617977528 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 10.2758426966 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 5.13820224719 19% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 10.0 4.83258426966 207% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.128682399879 0.243740707755 53% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0540695677917 0.0831039109588 65% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0525263781634 0.0758088955206 69% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0833926894309 0.150359130593 55% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0442787402369 0.0667264976115 66% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.2 14.1392134831 122% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 35.61 48.8420337079 73% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.0 12.1743820225 123% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.7 12.1639044944 113% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.96 8.38706741573 107% => OK
difficult_words: 111.0 100.480337079 110% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 11.8971910112 101% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.8 11.2143820225 114% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.