It is primarily through our identification with social groups that we define ourselves.
To begin with, special attention must be made in the use of the expression “define ourselves”. What shade of the word “define” are we considering? It is possible to interpret it in two main ways: in an assertive, stating manner, consisting in the recognition of a passive recognition of the aspects of our characters; and in a more actively shaping instance which considers the definition of ourselves as a concrete modification of our behaviour features. It is clearly impossible to ignore any of these two values of the world, hence the necessity of studying the two different ways in which the proposed statement holds true.
Aligned to the first of the two values, the passive-assertive way, is a saying that sees his roots in the ancient Greek philosophy: <<the politikon”="" “zoon="" a="" is="" being="" human="">> (Socrates), namely, a “political animal”. In other words, men are supposed to seek personal identification, role and life scopes fundamentally in their social life (political means, in this sense, “related to the city”, to the <polis>). Much more concretely, this is a circumstance that we perfectly find in our professional achievements: as maintained by a considerable number of social studies, the preponderant reason for people to look for a satisfying job is not the salary desire, but the sense of being part of a productive and stimulant social group. In this sense, it is correct to point out that a crucial part of our self-identification goes through our professional interaction with a job place.
Switching to the second possible interpretation of the word “define”, an actual Italian popular platitude deserves a moment of consideration. They say: <<tell are="" you="" who="" say="" will="" i="" and="" with="" go="" me="">>. Teenagers’ life experiences turn out to be the best compelling evidence of this mechanism: they’re social groups, their companies, all have pivotal interactions with their personal characteristics. In particular, young people can dramatically change their attitude in function of the people they attend, thus making it unavoidable to accept that there is a real, extant trend to define ourselves by the means of the identification with a group of people.
On the other hand, while in these two ways the statement is effectively correct, there are aspects of our self that are usually not defined by any social measure. Art, for example, is obviously something that follows the idea of comparison with other fellows or audience, but, in many cases, the more unique and non-compared the piece of art is, the more genuine and original it is considered. That is the case of some well-known artists like Philip Glass, a contemporary pianist composer who greatly defined himself only through his personal studies and musical ideas; or Galileo Galilei, the genius who, basically, ignored any social, moral and religious imposition made by the Church and winded up being one of the most influent scientists in our history.
This all being said, it is consistent to determine this statement as something that holds deep true in the majority of the point of view from which it can be read, but it cannot be over-generalized. In fact, in some aspects of self-definition, like artistic skills, social constrains and interaction do not show any concrete role.
</tell></polis></the>
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 281, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'an' instead of 'a' if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g. 'an article', 'an hour'
Suggestion: an
... human=''>> Socrates, namely, a 'political animal'. In other ...
^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, hence, if, look, second, so, thus, well, while, for example, in fact, in particular, in many cases, in other words, to begin with, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 25.0 19.5258426966 128% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 12.4196629213 32% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 14.8657303371 87% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 11.3162921348 115% => OK
Pronoun: 47.0 33.0505617978 142% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 83.0 58.6224719101 142% => OK
Nominalization: 22.0 12.9106741573 170% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3037.0 2235.4752809 136% => OK
No of words: 535.0 442.535393258 121% => OK
Chars per words: 5.67663551402 5.05705443957 112% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.80937282943 4.55969084622 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 4.05587406369 2.79657885939 145% => OK
Unique words: 298.0 215.323595506 138% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.557009345794 0.4932671777 113% => OK
syllable_count: 937.8 704.065955056 133% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.59117977528 113% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 6.24550561798 144% => OK
Article: 8.0 4.99550561798 160% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 3.10617977528 32% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.77640449438 225% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 11.0 4.38483146067 251% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
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: 31.0 23.0359550562 135% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 80.3027575614 60.3974514979 133% => OK
Chars per sentence: 178.647058824 118.986275619 150% => OK
Words per sentence: 31.4705882353 23.4991977007 134% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.41176470588 5.21951772744 180% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 4.97078651685 121% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 10.2758426966 127% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 0.0 5.13820224719 0% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.131331161486 0.243740707755 54% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0722972797071 0.0831039109588 87% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0619776962758 0.0758088955206 82% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0742951311005 0.150359130593 49% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0522117120993 0.0667264976115 78% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 21.1 14.1392134831 149% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 23.09 48.8420337079 47% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 13.0 7.92365168539 164% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 17.7 12.1743820225 145% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.26 12.1639044944 134% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.96 8.38706741573 119% => OK
difficult_words: 162.0 100.480337079 161% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.5 11.8971910112 130% => OK
gunning_fog: 14.4 11.2143820225 128% => OK
text_standard: 16.0 11.7820224719 136% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 70.83 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.25 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.