Some people argue that successful leaders in government, industry, or other fields must be highly competitive. Other people claim that in order to be successful, a leader must be willing and able to cooperate with others.
The belief of the inherent value of cooperation vs competition in young adults is a subject of great debate. What these values promote in terms of success in the professional environment is a different issue to what they instill as a sense of well-being, belonging, or purpose in life. While industry or government sectors are led by usually cut-throat, careerist personalities; society at large would not be served well to promote competitive values as they are dangerous for the sense of connection people have with each other, in addition to their indirect deleterious effect on the earth's ecosystem.
Humans are social animals. Science has shown that endorphins and dopamine chemicals, which are linked to motivation and finding purpose, arise as a result of positive social interaction. Certainly, a sense of euphoria is achieved after beating your competition; but that feeling is addictive and short-lived. When we observe the list of the highest-income business leaders, they are no longer motivated by money but by the achievement in conquering yet more markets and raising their stock prices, and they are not the happier for it. On the other hand, people of modest income can experience a significant sense of satisfaction not by beating the competition, but rather by philanthropy and volunteering.
Society would be served well to promote policies that conserve the earth's climate, ecosystem, and flora and fauna. These are broad categories and are not immediately connected to societal values yet it is precisely the lack of concern with our non-replenishable resources, that can lead society, and the entire globe at large, to a dangerous and precarious path. Entrepreneurs and politicians, both indoctrinated in the hypothetical society that rising GDP and economic prowess of a nation is paramount, above-all-else, could not see the looming dangers of climate change and destruction of earth's resources if it hit them in the face. Conversely, a society that favored cooperation, connectivity, and sharing resources would see that our very own survival is far more important than being the first or most popular in our given field.
In conclusion, one cannot simply point to the latest technological advance, or the charisma and acumen of certain political leaders, and not consider that putting these things on a pedestal without looking at their accompanying side effects is misguided. We need not rush to instill in our young people a sense of competition above cooperation, because when this generation grows up to become the leaders and decision-makers of our nation, they will see decisions affecting the common good low on their priority list. I contend that cooperation is inherent in our makeup as human beings as is the value that will help us overcome challenges facing the entire globe, together.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 587, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'earths'' or 'earth's'?
Suggestion: earths'; earth's
...heir indirect deleterious effect on the earths ecosystem. Humans are social animals...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 68, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'earths'' or 'earth's'?
Suggestion: earths'; earth's
...l to promote policies that conserve the earths climate, ecosystem, and flora and fauna...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, conversely, first, if, look, so, still, well, while, in addition, in conclusion, as a result, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 19.5258426966 113% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.4196629213 81% => OK
Conjunction : 27.0 14.8657303371 182% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 11.3162921348 115% => OK
Pronoun: 38.0 33.0505617978 115% => OK
Preposition: 57.0 58.6224719101 97% => OK
Nominalization: 21.0 12.9106741573 163% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2383.0 2235.4752809 107% => OK
No of words: 451.0 442.535393258 102% => OK
Chars per words: 5.28381374723 5.05705443957 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.60833598836 4.55969084622 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.11571514849 2.79657885939 111% => OK
Unique words: 256.0 215.323595506 119% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.567627494457 0.4932671777 115% => OK
syllable_count: 752.4 704.065955056 107% => 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: 3.0 4.99550561798 60% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 3.10617977528 97% => OK
Conjunction: 9.0 1.77640449438 507% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 4.38483146067 91% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 20.2370786517 74% => 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: 30.0 23.0359550562 130% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 74.5509818104 60.3974514979 123% => OK
Chars per sentence: 158.866666667 118.986275619 134% => OK
Words per sentence: 30.0666666667 23.4991977007 128% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.73333333333 5.21951772744 148% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 10.2758426966 107% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 5.13820224719 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.163507370352 0.243740707755 67% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0457832152263 0.0831039109588 55% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0515327420134 0.0758088955206 68% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0909112896045 0.150359130593 60% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0457905020825 0.0667264976115 69% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 18.5 14.1392134831 131% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 32.57 48.8420337079 67% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 16.2 12.1743820225 133% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.94 12.1639044944 115% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.92 8.38706741573 118% => OK
difficult_words: 137.0 100.480337079 136% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 19.5 11.8971910112 164% => OK
gunning_fog: 14.0 11.2143820225 125% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.7820224719 119% => 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: 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.