Society should identify those children who have special talents and provide training for them at an early age to develop their talents.
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.
Some people claim that society should spot children with special talents and provide training for them at an early age to develop their talents. However, I believe that adopting this recommendation would be disadvantageous in two aspects: in the child itself and in the society as a whole.
First of all, thinking about the child itself is very easy to realize that there would be a high pressure in this boy or girl, since he was chosen by “society” in order to thrive in some specific skill. Complimentary to the high pressure, the child would lose his childhood, since he would probably need to dedicate a lot of time to master his talents. The corollary in the child development could be some psychological traumas and the production of “outsiders” without a sense of community. There are already some examples of young people that were stimulated by their parents to develop some talent and that, even if today they are successful, they regret their childhood lost. One of them is a very famous chinese pianist that used to spend more than 4 hours per day training while all his friends were playing and having fun. It is true that today he is the greater pianist alive, but at what cost? Therefore, this recommendation should not be a social and collective choice.
The second reason is related to the impacts of this recommendation not in the child itself, but in the entire society. The argument is very simple here: in order to provide special training for selected children it is necessary to dedicate more funding that would probably be withdraw from the general education. In addition, this policy would be an additional source and generator of inequalities, since some people would receive a better education and be the “selected” ones. Thus, in macro and social terms, the recommendation has no advantages and could lead to a more divide society.
In addition to the psychological and social consequences, it is important to assert that the implementation of the recommendation would be a problem per se. Indeed, the question underlying the argument is: who would be responsible for spotting and selecting the special kids? Also, what does talent means? Are we talking about prodigious and geniuses children or regular boys and girls who stands out in a specific characteristic. Moreover, would the parents be allowed to deny the special education or it would be mandatory? There are several complex questions that should be answered in order to understand all the aspects that are involved with the recommendation.
To sum up, I believe that the recommendation is based in a fallacious thought about talents and that the implementation would yield to social and psychological impacts that are not advantageous in any circumstance. This is not to say that society doesn’t have to encourage their youth to develop talents, but it is to say that there should not be an institutionalize policy that selects some special kids and excludes the rest of them.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 17, column 353, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
...t it is to say that there should not be an institutionalize policy that selects some special kids a...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 19, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... kids and excludes the rest of them.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, moreover, second, so, therefore, thus, while, in addition, talking about, first of all, it is true, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 34.0 19.5258426966 174% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 19.0 12.4196629213 153% => OK
Conjunction : 23.0 14.8657303371 155% => OK
Relative clauses : 19.0 11.3162921348 168% => OK
Pronoun: 49.0 33.0505617978 148% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 64.0 58.6224719101 109% => OK
Nominalization: 20.0 12.9106741573 155% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2552.0 2235.4752809 114% => OK
No of words: 497.0 442.535393258 112% => OK
Chars per words: 5.13480885312 5.05705443957 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.72159896747 4.55969084622 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.16847045895 2.79657885939 113% => OK
Unique words: 233.0 215.323595506 108% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.468812877264 0.4932671777 95% => OK
syllable_count: 786.6 704.065955056 112% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 6.24550561798 128% => OK
Article: 6.0 4.99550561798 120% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 3.10617977528 129% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.77640449438 169% => OK
Preposition: 9.0 4.38483146067 205% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 20.2370786517 104% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 23.0359550562 100% => OK
Sentence length SD: 48.6923331815 60.3974514979 81% => OK
Chars per sentence: 121.523809524 118.986275619 102% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.6666666667 23.4991977007 101% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.66666666667 5.21951772744 128% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 14.0 10.2758426966 136% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 5.13820224719 58% => 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: 0.193486842909 0.243740707755 79% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0669755311713 0.0831039109588 81% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0918586219343 0.0758088955206 121% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.151244247998 0.150359130593 101% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.101310473931 0.0667264976115 152% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.6 14.1392134831 103% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.13 48.8420337079 99% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.1743820225 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.77 12.1639044944 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.99 8.38706741573 95% => OK
difficult_words: 101.0 100.480337079 101% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 11.8971910112 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.2143820225 100% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.7820224719 110% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.