College students should base their choice of a field of study on the availability of jobs in
that field.
The statement could be breifed as college student should choice field of studies that ensure job availability under the current circumstatnces. This statement is not true as it could be investigated through a set of evidences.
For instance, the author assumed that the availability of hiring chances of the current working field condition is unchangable during neither near or far future. Perhaps, these working field conditions could be affected by any external factor that limit the number of job vacancies in the markets such as an economic declination or market saturation by experts and experienced persons in that speifically intended fields. Thus, the author's statement is not valid.
Furthermore, the author neglected future opportunities of developing new business trends in the future of these students by the time of their graduation or even during their carreer future. Maybe working fields of limited jobs vacancy under the current conditions, would be in bad need to hire a huge number of employees of different experience levels in order to excute their future adopted strategies of developing and extending their business, for example. Consequently, the author cant not limit the future of these students career in a certain fields only as it is implied from the statement.
Conversely, regarding some critics perespectives that expect that working field trend could be easily predicted based on the near and far past history of markets and business trends, such critics would validate the author's statement as being a guidance of the student in order to hunt a proper job in their career future. However, such guidance could be effective for students along short term of markets predication, such statement if taken for guaranteed would lead to uncomplementary societies. Whereas, such societies would perform only a limit kinds of jobs and would need expats and foriegners in order to cover this shortage of jobs and less hiring chances in their societies. Conseqently, this statement is not a proper guidance to the new generations that needed to lead their societies to further development and better economic stituations.
These previously illustrated evidences are a set of evidences that portayed the extend of how much the author's statement is invalid regarding both students career and socities development.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
The statement could be breifed as colleg...
^^^
Line 2, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...vestigated through a set of evidences. For instance, the author assumed that...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 151, Rule ID: NEITHER_NOR[1]
Message: Use 'nor' with neither.
Suggestion: nor
...tion is unchangable during neither near or far future. Perhaps, these working fiel...
^^
Line 3, column 436, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
... speifically intended fields. Thus, the authors statement is not valid. Furthermo...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... the authors statement is not valid. Furthermore, the author neglected future...
^^^
Line 5, column 226, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'jobs'' or 'job's'?
Suggestion: jobs'; job's
...future. Maybe working fields of limited jobs vacancy under the current conditions, w...
^^^^
Line 5, column 489, Rule ID: CANT[1]
Message: Did you mean 'can't' or 'cannot'?
Suggestion: can't; cannot
..., for example. Consequently, the author cant not limit the future of these students ...
^^^^
Line 6, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...y as it is implied from the statement. Conversely, regarding some critics pe...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 219, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...trends, such critics would validate the authors statement as being a guidance of the st...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ent and better economic stituations. These previously illustrated evidences a...
^^^
Line 9, column 80, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
...es are a set of evidences that portayed the extend of how much the authors statement is in...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 107, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...hat portayed the extend of how much the authors statement is invalid regarding both stu...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 193, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...udents career and socities development.
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
consequently, conversely, furthermore, however, if, may, regarding, so, thus, whereas, for example, for instance, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 19.5258426966 72% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.4196629213 105% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 14.8657303371 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 11.3162921348 71% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 24.0 33.0505617978 73% => OK
Preposition: 54.0 58.6224719101 92% => OK
Nominalization: 20.0 12.9106741573 155% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1979.0 2235.4752809 89% => OK
No of words: 367.0 442.535393258 83% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.39237057221 5.05705443957 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.37689890912 4.55969084622 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.92939483211 2.79657885939 105% => OK
Unique words: 178.0 215.323595506 83% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.485013623978 0.4932671777 98% => OK
syllable_count: 606.6 704.065955056 86% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 6.24550561798 64% => OK
Article: 5.0 4.99550561798 100% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 3.10617977528 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.38483146067 23% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 20.2370786517 64% => 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: 28.0 23.0359550562 122% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 71.7207767839 60.3974514979 119% => OK
Chars per sentence: 152.230769231 118.986275619 128% => OK
Words per sentence: 28.2307692308 23.4991977007 120% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.30769230769 5.21951772744 178% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 13.0 7.80617977528 167% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 10.2758426966 68% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 5.13820224719 97% => 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: 0.270116050167 0.243740707755 111% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.102053656489 0.0831039109588 123% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.111387797533 0.0758088955206 147% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.154009320237 0.150359130593 102% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0876489828942 0.0667264976115 131% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 18.1 14.1392134831 128% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 34.6 48.8420337079 71% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.4 12.1743820225 126% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.28 12.1639044944 117% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.07 8.38706741573 108% => OK
difficult_words: 94.0 100.480337079 94% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.5 11.8971910112 130% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.2 11.2143820225 118% => OK
text_standard: 16.0 11.7820224719 136% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.