It is often argued that architects should mainly design buildings according to their practical purposes rather than to be attractive and beautiful. Personally, I agree entirely with this Idea and I will discuss the reasons here.
Utilitarian buildings intended to serve specific purposes seem to promote the productivity of the occupants and also their clientele. This means that modern architecture should consider necessary criteria in the internal designs to successfully address the practical purposes and problems, hopefully being applicable to serve the people`s demands. For instance, it seems necessary for hospitals to involve fundamental infrastructures, rooms, and equipment to deal with problems arisen for both patients and health staff. Furthermore, while designing more practical structures, architects would save money and time to construct extra buildings for similar functions. The importance of this idea might be realized by highlighting the lack of land and natural resources in the context of the growing world population. A utilitarian construction which fully contains all necessities for urban life might diminish the need for further expenses and time for transport, construction, leading to raising the sense of satisfaction for the inhabitants.
Some may argue that qualities of beauty and attractiveness seem to tremendously affect people`s mind, and thus their attitude towards such buildings for their affairs. Nevertheless, this notion may raise financial and social concerns for the owners and their clienteles if buildings are devoid of necessary spaces, structures, and equipment to serve their needs.
In conclusion, I believe that the benefits of a modern internal design are superior to an incentive design for the appearance, as it appropriately considers people`s demands, as well as diminish waste of their time and money.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 10, Rule ID: MASS_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Possible agreement error - use third-person verb forms for singular and mass nouns: 'argues'.
Suggestion: argues
...action for the inhabitants. Some may argue that qualities of beauty and attractive...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, furthermore, if, may, nevertheless, so, thus, well, while, for instance, in conclusion, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 6.0 13.1623246493 46% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 7.85571142285 115% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 10.4138276553 144% => OK
Relative clauses : 5.0 7.30460921844 68% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 21.0 24.0651302605 87% => OK
Preposition: 28.0 41.998997996 67% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 8.3376753507 96% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1611.0 1615.20841683 100% => OK
No of words: 277.0 315.596192385 88% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.81588447653 5.12529762239 113% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.07962216107 4.20363070211 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.19220139525 2.80592935109 114% => OK
Unique words: 164.0 176.041082164 93% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.592057761733 0.561755894193 105% => OK
syllable_count: 481.5 506.74238477 95% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 5.43587174349 110% => OK
Article: 2.0 2.52805611222 79% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.10420841683 143% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 0.809619238477 371% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 1.0 4.76152304609 21% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 11.0 16.0721442886 68% => 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 20.2975951904 123% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 43.5814047843 49.4020404114 88% => OK
Chars per sentence: 146.454545455 106.682146367 137% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.1818181818 20.7667163134 121% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.45454545455 7.06120827912 134% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.67935871743 104% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 3.9879759519 25% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 3.4128256513 29% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.223748038903 0.244688304435 91% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0879560667797 0.084324248473 104% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0465110532926 0.0667982634062 70% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.129716252422 0.151304729494 86% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0557383275969 0.056905535591 98% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 18.6 13.0946893788 142% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 37.64 50.2224549098 75% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.44779559118 150% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 11.3001002004 126% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.77 12.4159519038 135% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.29 8.58950901804 120% => OK
difficult_words: 95.0 78.4519038076 121% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.5 9.78957915832 128% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 10.1190380762 119% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 10.7795591182 111% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 78.6516853933 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.0 Out of 9
---------------------
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.