Nowadays, educational tuitions as well as lack of encouragement in the one who has finished a course study lead so many people to define some artistic lessons trivial and eliminate them and also substitute useful courses in order to bolster the employment’s perception. From my point of view, this kind of approach would definitely have a destructive effect on educational facilities.
First and foremost, some would argue that although artistic subjects might not add any functional knowledge on students, eliminating the. have a harmful impact specially on culture. Indeed, eluding from historical university categories prone country to get far from originality. Furthermore, this kind of perception would be insulting to the one who is enthusiastic about this kind of major. Consequently, removing theoretical subjects is just deteriorating the conditions rather than healing them.
On the other hand, some people strongly believe art lessons disposal and rise of concentration on functional degree would be a principal method. Full consensus has been available among this group of people in which inadequate being useful of historical as well as art lessons in education system. Personally, this eccentric scheme would have just collapse the whole academic methods. Going under the surface, in order to grasp the increase of employment, it doesn’t need to sacrifice theoretical subjects. It stand to reason that a proper approach needs to be provided from sophisticated staffs to derive a correct changes.
Overall, it is so conspicuous that vanishing some kinds of lessons is trivial. Demolishing fundamental lessons for instance philosophy and history is so risky and it’s our responsibility to prevent this from happening, otherwise society go through a severe conditions and loom past events getting forgotten.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 134, Rule ID: THE_SENT_END[1]
Message: Did you forget something after 'the'?
...onal knowledge on students, eliminating the. have a harmful impact specially on cult...
^^^^
Line 3, column 139, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Have
...knowledge on students, eliminating the. have a harmful impact specially on culture. ...
^^^^
Line 5, column 515, Rule ID: IT_VBZ[1]
Message: Did you mean 'stands'?
Suggestion: stands
...d to sacrifice theoretical subjects. It stand to reason that a proper approach needs ...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 621, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[2]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'change'?
Suggestion: change
...ophisticated staffs to derive a correct changes. Overall, it is so conspicuous that ...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, consequently, first, furthermore, if, so, thus, well, for instance, kind of, as well as, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 13.1623246493 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 7.85571142285 89% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 10.4138276553 67% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 7.30460921844 82% => OK
Pronoun: 17.0 24.0651302605 71% => OK
Preposition: 40.0 41.998997996 95% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 8.3376753507 96% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1565.0 1615.20841683 97% => OK
No of words: 278.0 315.596192385 88% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.62949640288 5.12529762239 110% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.08329915638 4.20363070211 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.17217446785 2.80592935109 113% => OK
Unique words: 176.0 176.041082164 100% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.63309352518 0.561755894193 113% => OK
syllable_count: 490.5 506.74238477 97% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.60771543086 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 5.43587174349 110% => OK
Article: 0.0 2.52805611222 0% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.10420841683 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.76152304609 63% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 16.0721442886 87% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 20.2975951904 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 57.7781206383 49.4020404114 117% => OK
Chars per sentence: 111.785714286 106.682146367 105% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.8571428571 20.7667163134 96% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.0 7.06120827912 113% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.01903807615 80% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.67935871743 58% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 3.9879759519 125% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 3.4128256513 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.123738912864 0.244688304435 51% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.03924175211 0.084324248473 47% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0328340339456 0.0667982634062 49% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0710085119677 0.151304729494 47% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0259495079047 0.056905535591 46% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.0 13.0946893788 115% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 35.27 50.2224549098 70% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.44779559118 150% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.1 11.3001002004 116% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.37 12.4159519038 124% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.69 8.58950901804 113% => OK
difficult_words: 90.0 78.4519038076 115% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.5 9.78957915832 128% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.1190380762 95% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 10.7795591182 93% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 67.4157303371 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 6.0 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.