Some people believe that women should be equally treated with men in terms of recruitment in the police or the Army. However, the issue is not entirely straightforward, and arguments can also be made against the idea. This essay will discuss the debate, and give a concluding view.
On the one hand, those who support the gender equality in the armed force cite the benefits that this can bring to the both authorities and female employees. This means that the decision allows women to enter traditionally male roles, which expands the pool of people available to these jobs. As a result, not only women would be clearly more motivated and enthusiastic about the competition, but also admission officers could be given the opportunity to opt for prime workers for the organization’s benefit. Another argument is the financial advantages that women and their families can gain. By this we mean that these equal rights can lead to more female workers entering into workforce generally, thus increasing the families’ income, and eventually enhancing the living standards of other family members concerned.
By contrast, opponents of this view point out that the sex quota is not advisable or even possible in the police or the Army. They highlight the evidence from countries such as Mexico, where the majority of female police officers fail to enforce law fully. In these cases the officers appear to make exceptions for female or young criminals, due to emotional reasons. Furthermore, those who oppose female recruitment in the armed force insist that physical weakness of women makes them unable to serve as productively as their male peers do, resulting in disruption or even fail of missions. Examples can be seen during Afghanistan War, where this appears to be the case. Finally, it must be said that a substantial proportion of women are reluctant to do such jobs, because their interests lie elsewhere, making their hiring impossible.
Overall, I tend to side with opponents of these quotas. It is inadvisable and impossible to involve women in such emotionally and physically demanding roles, where they might fail to fit the job descriptions.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, furthermore, however, so, thus, such as, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 13.1623246493 91% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 7.85571142285 140% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 10.4138276553 134% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 7.30460921844 192% => OK
Pronoun: 31.0 24.0651302605 129% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 42.0 41.998997996 100% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 8.3376753507 96% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1821.0 1615.20841683 113% => OK
No of words: 352.0 315.596192385 112% => OK
Chars per words: 5.17329545455 5.12529762239 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.33147354134 4.20363070211 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.86669969405 2.80592935109 102% => OK
Unique words: 209.0 176.041082164 119% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.59375 0.561755894193 106% => OK
syllable_count: 580.5 506.74238477 115% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.60771543086 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 5.43587174349 147% => OK
Article: 1.0 2.52805611222 40% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.10420841683 95% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 0.809619238477 494% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 4.76152304609 84% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 16.0721442886 100% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 20.2975951904 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 53.2135658808 49.4020404114 108% => OK
Chars per sentence: 113.8125 106.682146367 107% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.0 20.7667163134 106% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.5 7.06120827912 64% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.67935871743 58% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 3.9879759519 150% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 3.4128256513 147% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.231639849721 0.244688304435 95% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0731517080348 0.084324248473 87% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0757291670123 0.0667982634062 113% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.14280474538 0.151304729494 94% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0574135496369 0.056905535591 101% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.9 13.0946893788 106% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 50.2224549098 98% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 11.3001002004 105% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.71 12.4159519038 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.17 8.58950901804 107% => OK
difficult_words: 99.0 78.4519038076 126% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 9.78957915832 112% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.1190380762 107% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 10.7795591182 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 89.8876404494 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 8.0 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.