Men and women, because of their inherent physical differences, are not equally suited for many tasks.
<p class="p1">The author argues that the men and women are not equally treated for many works because of their naturally boned physical differences. I partially agree with that men and women are not equally suited for many tasks. However, even the trend of feminism fashion through the whole areas in Korea, the part of tasks still describes the invisible gap between the gender difference. Therefore, I oppose the opinion who aid both of sex should be treated in the all the tasks.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>
</p>
<p class="p1">Admittedly, copious of fields seems fair enough to say current status of women in my society equal to those of men. Jobs requiring ability of on intelligence have been increased recently. For example, since the beginning of the advent of computer, occupation which demand the high quality of reasoning stilly accelerated; programmer, reverse engineer, application programmer and server manager. In addition, the tasks with creativity either shows less relevant to gender issue. From now on, Google, one of the prestigious company in the world, will lead the increment of job requiring creativity and reasoning. Thus, the rate of identically handling labor without considering the sex will be increase in the total number of job markets. Even though this explanation describe well for conclusion fairly treatment of gender issue in many tasks, we should consider several factors to strength and support inference.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></p>
<p class="p1">First, the distinction between the sexes' nothing to squeeze in some areas. Although statistically the legislation women's social position have been guaranteed enough number of seats for women in the field of civil servant or soldier in recent few years, the disparity between the sexes still remain a huge gap in the percentage of people of National assembly. This data can explain the relevance of the men for politics and assembly related occupation.<br>
</p>
<p class="p1">Second, The process for a professional soldier has distinct regulation between sexes in all examination such as doing sit-up, running, or press-up. Of course, speaking of propriety and adequacy, this rules seem quite fair taking account of the disparity between the sexes. According to this example, some tasks need to regard and acknowledge the distinct gender. For example, who should be in charge of cleaning men and women's bathroom? In the superb condition, the person with same-sex take the cleaning of their bathroom sounds proper. If we try to impartially and evenly this task, then everybody should to endure the ashamedness every moment they go to the toilet.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></p>
<p class="p1">Third, men's physical ability works well in daily life's task. For instance, when we would to fix the fluorescent light in the high, taller person might be proper and the possibility men are taller than the women highly examined. Furthermore, when making clothes and tasks demanding thoughtful consideration effectively be allowed for women.</p>
<p class="p1"><span style="font-size: 1.1em;">In conclusion, though there are lots of example we can discuss on the gender issue such as the cases mentioned above, it is hard to generalize whether men and women should be dealt with impartially or not.</span><span class="Apple-converted-space" style="font-size: 1.1em;"> </span><br></p>
<p class="p3"><br></p>
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 60, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'sexes'' or 'sex's'?
Suggestion: sexes'; sex's
...pos;>First, the distinction between the sexes nothing to squeeze in some areas. Altho...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, furthermore, however, if, second, so, still, then, therefore, third, thus, well, for example, for instance, in addition, in conclusion, of course, speaking of, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 19.5258426966 67% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.4196629213 97% => OK
Conjunction : 16.0 14.8657303371 108% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 11.3162921348 62% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 19.0 33.0505617978 57% => OK
Preposition: 76.0 58.6224719101 130% => OK
Nominalization: 19.0 12.9106741573 147% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3103.0 2235.4752809 139% => OK
No of words: 512.0 442.535393258 116% => OK
Chars per words: 6.060546875 5.05705443957 120% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.75682846001 4.55969084622 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 5.73843813604 2.79657885939 205% => Word_Length_SD is high.
Unique words: 296.0 215.323595506 137% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.578125 0.4932671777 117% => OK
syllable_count: 886.5 704.065955056 126% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 6.24550561798 96% => OK
Article: 7.0 4.99550561798 140% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 3.10617977528 225% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.38483146067 137% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 20.2370786517 94% => OK
Sentence length: 26.0 23.0359550562 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 117.32106668 60.3974514979 194% => OK
Chars per sentence: 163.315789474 118.986275619 137% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.9473684211 23.4991977007 115% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.15789473684 5.21951772744 175% => OK
Paragraphs: 7.0 4.97078651685 141% => Less paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 10.2758426966 117% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 5.13820224719 39% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.83258426966 103% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.200850519082 0.243740707755 82% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0845659959249 0.0831039109588 102% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.129802557223 0.0758088955206 171% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.114894201963 0.150359130593 76% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.112271480138 0.0667264976115 168% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 20.6 14.1392134831 146% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 36.63 48.8420337079 75% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.6 12.1743820225 120% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 18.16 12.1639044944 149% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.71 8.38706741573 116% => OK
difficult_words: 155.0 100.480337079 154% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 11.8971910112 118% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 11.2143820225 111% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Maximum six paragraphs wanted.
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.