“A nation should require all its students to study the same national curriculum until they enter college rather than allow schools in different parts of the nation to determine which academic courses to offer.”
A nation's progress can be evaluated by taking into account the percentage of the literate and educated population residing in that country. The author's recommendation of having all the students of a nation study the same national curriculum until entering college should be considered only after taking into account the following points.
A singular curriculum throughout the nation for all the students is a far-fetched and idealistic recommendation because firstly, it means that all students irrespective of their individual interests have to study the same subjects through the same learning pattern. This prevents children from pursuing their personal interests. Let's consider the example of Indian cricket champion Sachin Tendulkar. It is a well-known fact that Sachin Tendulkar failed his 10th board exam on the first attempt but got selected on the National Cricket Team soon after. If he would have had to learn the same curriculum without giving time to practicing cricket, he would not have become the talented cricket player that we know.
Secondly, the author states that 'all students' should have to take the same curriculum but does not take into account the students with disabilities and students having higher IQ. These students may for the most part find the singular curriculum restricting and hence would fall behind. Students with high IQ might find the curriculum boring and would not be challenged enough. Students with learning or physical disabilities might find the curriculum challenging and fall well behind their peers.
Finally, the author's recommendation holds water in the reasoning that all the students having the same curriculum throughout school years until college will level the educational playing field thus limiting undue advantages to students and giving greater chance at success in future, all the other realistic points stated above have to be considered before author's recommendation is considered for implementatio.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 145, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...opulation residing in that country. The authors recommendation of having all the studen...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 330, Rule ID: LETS_LET[1]
Message: Did you mean 'Let's'?
Suggestion: Let's
...from pursuing their personal interests. Lets consider the example of Indian cricket ...
^^^^
Line 3, column 559, Rule ID: IF_WOULD_HAVE_VBN[1]
Message: Did you mean 'had had'?
Suggestion: had had
...National Cricket Team soon after. If he would have had to learn the same curriculum without gi...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 14, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...ell behind their peers. Finally, the authors recommendation holds water in the reaso...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 274, Rule ID: IN_PAST[1]
Message: Did you mean: 'in the future'?
Suggestion: in the future
...ts and giving greater chance at success in future, all the other realistic points stated ...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, firstly, hence, if, may, second, secondly, so, thus, well
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 7.0 19.5258426966 36% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.4196629213 89% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 14.8657303371 67% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 11.3162921348 53% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 17.0 33.0505617978 51% => OK
Preposition: 38.0 58.6224719101 65% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 12.9106741573 39% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1670.0 2235.4752809 75% => OK
No of words: 302.0 442.535393258 68% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.5298013245 5.05705443957 109% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.1687104957 4.55969084622 91% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.83162731316 2.79657885939 101% => OK
Unique words: 165.0 215.323595506 77% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.546357615894 0.4932671777 111% => OK
syllable_count: 499.5 704.065955056 71% => 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: 5.0 4.99550561798 100% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 3.10617977528 32% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 0.0 4.38483146067 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 20.2370786517 59% => 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: 25.0 23.0359550562 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 93.0415080608 60.3974514979 154% => OK
Chars per sentence: 139.166666667 118.986275619 117% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.1666666667 23.4991977007 107% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.5 5.21951772744 125% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 7.80617977528 64% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 10.2758426966 68% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 5.13820224719 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.83258426966 41% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.261971280588 0.243740707755 107% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0995311896201 0.0831039109588 120% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0985245076593 0.0758088955206 130% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.172131298872 0.150359130593 114% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0702775311812 0.0667264976115 105% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.2 14.1392134831 122% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 37.64 48.8420337079 77% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 12.1743820225 117% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.09 12.1639044944 124% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.64 8.38706741573 103% => OK
difficult_words: 72.0 100.480337079 72% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 15.5 11.8971910112 130% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.2143820225 107% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Better to have 5/6 paragraphs with 3/4 arguments. And try always support/against one side but compare two sides, like this:
para 1: introduction
para 2: reason 1. address both of the views presented for reason 1
para 3: reason 2. address both of the views presented for reason 2
para 4: reason 3. address both of the views presented for reason 3
para 5: reason 4. address both of the views presented for reason 4 (optional)
para 6: conclusion.
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.