In order to become well-rounded individuals, all college students should be required to take courses in which they read poetry, novels, mythology, and other types of imaginative literature.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agre

Essay topics:

In order to become well-rounded individuals, all college students should be required to take courses in which they read poetry, novels, mythology, and other types of imaginative literature.

Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, describe specific circumstances in which adopting the recommendation would or would not be advantageous and explain how these examples shape your position.

The author of this issue task seems to have little hesitation before establishing a connection between the imaginative literature and the comprehensive development of students. Instead, the attribute of the imaginative literature, to think things freely, could definitely emancipate students from the burden of the stale framework and contributes to their well-around development. However, before assigning it as a compulsory course, we have to consider thoroughfully certain circumstances, which the literature could be advantageous or disadvantageous.

First of all, unlike other scientific course, such as mathematics, physics, etc., which requires scrupulous observation and meticulous ratiocination, the imaginative literature is renowned for its free domain it gives to students. Thus, taking literature as a course could help students untether from the hackneyed frameworks in their major, as these acquaints rules and principles might impede with their innovative thinking. Furthermore, we can even predict that a positive combination between unfettered imagination and scrupulous learning attitude could contribute to students' improvement of their basic learing abilities, which facilitate them to become the exhaustive individuals.

Moreover, literature courses are intended to encourage students' creativity, but it could be jeopardized under some situations, which might go beyond students' capacity and the available teaching resources. First of all, reading novel, poetry is a kind of respite for students out of their onerous courses, and it is because of this that students could really enjoy the beauty behind. However, if a compulsory literature course could become as taxing as their other courses, their enthusiasm about such course will languish. Such negative turnaround could definitely do harm to their potential to cultivate their innovation thinking. Second, it is difficult to enlarge enrollment for literature course, thus one possible approach to make it in school's schedule is by requiring one teacher to take more than one instruction. However, such strategy could lead to teacher's work payload, which might jeopardize their teaching quality and their attention for each student. Therefore, each students could be guaranteed with sufficiently training and their ability of innovation thinking is bound to exacerbate, which lies at the root of their well-around individuals.

Last but not least, while I sympathize with the author's attitudes to students' well-around cultivation, I somehow questions about the validity of such recommendation about whether it could well cover for different fields with various methodologies. Undoubtfully, the literature is beneficial to improve students' ability for imagination. However, not all of fields or majors could enjoy such advantages, as not all of them will share the same methodology boundaries. For example, it is difficult to image a student who requires to learn mathematic with new reasoning process to leavage the imaginative benefit directly. Instead of that, he might be confused about the relationship between such learning and his major, let alone how to apply it in his/her research work.

In summary, the imaginative literature could bring benefit to students for liberating their potential for creativity. However, turning it as a compulsory courses might lead to the undoubtful burden both for students and teachers, which in turn endanger our original goal. Furthermore, considering the diversity of methodologies behind different majors relevant with students, the ultimately expected increasing innovation skills of students is not guaranteed. Thus, it is better to weigh its fortes and weakness based on different circumstance before taking action hastily.

Average: 8.3 (1 vote)
Essay Categories
Essays by the user:


Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 150, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'students'' or 'student's'?
Suggestion: students'; student's
... some situations, which might go beyond students capacity and the available teaching res...
Line 13, column 114, Rule ID: NON3PRS_VERB[1]
Message: The pronoun 'I' must be used with a non-third-person form of a verb: 'question'
Suggestion: question
...ents well-around cultivation, I somehow questions about the validity of such recommendati...
Line 13, column 527, Rule ID: ALLOW_TO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'learning'? Or maybe you should add a pronoun? In active voice, 'require' + 'to' takes an object, usually a pronoun.
Suggestion: learning
...fficult to image a student who requires to learn mathematic with new reasoning process t...

Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, furthermore, however, if, moreover, really, second, so, therefore, thus, well, while, for example, in summary, kind of, such as, first of all

Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 19.5258426966 77% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 21.0 12.4196629213 169% => OK
Conjunction : 16.0 14.8657303371 108% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 11.3162921348 97% => OK
Pronoun: 44.0 33.0505617978 133% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 76.0 58.6224719101 130% => OK
Nominalization: 19.0 12.9106741573 147% => OK

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3219.0 2235.4752809 144% => OK
No of words: 548.0 442.535393258 124% => OK
Chars per words: 5.87408759124 5.05705443957 116% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.83832613839 4.55969084622 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.1764464931 2.79657885939 114% => OK
Unique words: 287.0 215.323595506 133% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.523722627737 0.4932671777 106% => OK
syllable_count: 1002.6 704.065955056 142% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.59117977528 113% => OK

A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 6.24550561798 128% => OK
Article: 6.0 4.99550561798 120% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 3.10617977528 161% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.77640449438 113% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.38483146067 114% => OK

Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 20.2370786517 109% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 23.0359550562 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 44.1436657193 60.3974514979 73% => OK
Chars per sentence: 146.318181818 118.986275619 123% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.9090909091 23.4991977007 106% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.95454545455 5.21951772744 133% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 7.80617977528 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 17.0 10.2758426966 165% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 5.13820224719 78% => 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: 0.186120421074 0.243740707755 76% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0629456000646 0.0831039109588 76% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0398153398447 0.0758088955206 53% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.118293299196 0.150359130593 79% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0357278364675 0.0667264976115 54% => OK

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 18.7 14.1392134831 132% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 30.2 48.8420337079 62% => OK
smog_index: 13.0 7.92365168539 164% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.0 12.1743820225 123% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 17.06 12.1639044944 140% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.64 8.38706741573 115% => OK
difficult_words: 167.0 100.480337079 166% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 18.5 11.8971910112 155% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.2143820225 103% => OK
text_standard: 19.0 11.7820224719 161% => OK
What are above readability scores?


Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.