How can we define ourselves is certainly the hot-button issue these days. Such topic raises the controversial issue whether people can define their selves from the social groups identification. Indisputably, being available among different social groups will have a positive impact in the people identities. Nevertheless, there are a never ending cycle of factors that play the major roles to structure people identifications. Thus, I generally disagree with the issue statement. To substantiate my case this essay will illustrate my points and examples.
To begin with, the first and the foremost point coming to the mind is the multifarious factors that shaping people identification, such as, firstly, the person roles and regulations that governs their attitude or the general behaviors. In other words, I would like to point out vivid example is that when we put a child with restricted roles and regulations such polite communications skills, among a group of messy children, the child will still polite hence this indicating the innate roles of shaping the child identity. Consequently, it is pretty obvious from the first point is not always the social group will impact the people identifications.
Moreover, the second vital point that should be taken into consideration is the nature of the person. To illustrate that, the fact is some people are introverted do not like to share anything with the others. In contrast, some people are extroverted and tends to be open with people sharing ideas, feelings, and information. So, we can not conclude the both cases as the same. Hence, all the evidence above demonstrates that people identifications come from myriad of factors is not just the social groups.
Admittedly, it is true that social groups help to build up people identifications by meeting different backgrounds. However, the above argument does not constitute a sufficient support to claim because sometimes there are external factors can affect such as the peer pressures, the economic status and the health status, have direct impact on the people identities. Thus, it is hard to accepted the previous claims as a well rounded ground.
In conclusion, Due to aforementioned reasons and examples to be well identified person the previous roles and regulations, the external factors, and the people nature have a great impact is not just the social groups.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 172, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'groups'' or 'group's'?
Suggestion: groups'; group's
...can define their selves from the social groups identification. Indisputably, being ava...
^^^^^^
Line 1, column 348, Rule ID: THERE_RE_MANY[3]
Message: Possible agreement error. Did you mean 'cycles'?
Suggestion: cycles
... Nevertheless, there are a never ending cycle of factors that play the major roles to...
^^^^^
Line 6, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...impact the people identifications. Moreover, the second vital point that sh...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, consequently, first, firstly, hence, however, if, moreover, nevertheless, second, so, still, thus, well, in conclusion, in contrast, such as, in other words, it is true, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.5258426966 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.4196629213 81% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 14.8657303371 74% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 11.3162921348 80% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 24.0 33.0505617978 73% => OK
Preposition: 41.0 58.6224719101 70% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 12.9106741573 54% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2017.0 2235.4752809 90% => OK
No of words: 379.0 442.535393258 86% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.32189973615 5.05705443957 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.41224685777 4.55969084622 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.00512299197 2.79657885939 107% => OK
Unique words: 198.0 215.323595506 92% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.522427440633 0.4932671777 106% => OK
syllable_count: 618.3 704.065955056 88% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 6.24550561798 96% => OK
Article: 8.0 4.99550561798 160% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 3.10617977528 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.77640449438 113% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.38483146067 160% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 20.2370786517 89% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 23.0359550562 91% => OK
Sentence length SD: 67.361838484 60.3974514979 112% => OK
Chars per sentence: 112.055555556 118.986275619 94% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.0555555556 23.4991977007 90% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.4444444444 5.21951772744 200% => Less transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 7.80617977528 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 10.2758426966 88% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 5.13820224719 97% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.83258426966 83% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.111895116663 0.243740707755 46% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0420280024081 0.0831039109588 51% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0372622540819 0.0758088955206 49% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0637034235137 0.150359130593 42% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.029171507037 0.0667264976115 44% => 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: 14.2 14.1392134831 100% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 48.8420337079 103% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.1743820225 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.58 12.1639044944 112% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.39 8.38706741573 100% => OK
difficult_words: 89.0 100.480337079 89% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 11.8971910112 63% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.2143820225 93% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.7820224719 119% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 75.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.5 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.