Woman and men are commonly seen as having different strength and weaknesses. Is it right to exclude males or females from certain professions because of their gender?
Females and males have different born vocational preferences. However, it is unreasonable to reject a certain gender out of a certain occupation due to these biological differences.
All both of genders have naturally distinct strengths and weaknesses. Because of the different genetic characteristics, it is proven that social subjects such as literature, history could be seen as female-dominant ones while boys have a tendency to be good at logic ones including math, physics. In addition, in practical life, the gender gap of vocational preferences are also performed throw many living aspects. For example, mothers are often natural better at children nourishment than their husbands, which results in more mothers than fathers staying at home to foster their kids. As a result, either the female or the male might get more appreciated in certain industries than their counterparts.
Nevertheless, all industries should more open to both genders because of its distinctive advantages. First, in a particular position, a gender’s weaknesses can be compensated by other’s strengths, which could allow an organization to perform more effectively. For instance, the mixed-gender police force can control more successfully a complicated situation, since policewomen have communication skills better than their fellows. Furthermore, it would be discrimination to choose people for jobs according to their sex. For instance, if a female was the best candidate for the pot, it would be unfair to reject her in favour of a male with fewer qualifications and skills.
In conclusion, although both females and males do not have the same strengths and weaknesses, they should have the freedom of their vocational choice.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 216, Rule ID: ONES[1]
Message: Did you mean 'one's'?
Suggestion: one's
...istory could be seen as female-dominant ones while boys have a tendency to be good a...
^^^^
Line 5, column 491, Rule ID: AFFORD_VB[1]
Message: This verb is used with the infinitive: 'to people'
Suggestion: to people
...e, it would be discrimination to choose people for jobs according to their sex. For in...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, furthermore, however, if, nevertheless, so, while, for example, for instance, in addition, in conclusion, such as, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 13.1623246493 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 7.85571142285 115% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 10.4138276553 58% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 3.0 7.30460921844 41% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 15.0 24.0651302605 62% => OK
Preposition: 29.0 41.998997996 69% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 8.3376753507 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1470.0 1615.20841683 91% => OK
No of words: 263.0 315.596192385 83% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.58935361217 5.12529762239 109% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.02706775958 4.20363070211 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.30528275643 2.80592935109 118% => OK
Unique words: 162.0 176.041082164 92% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.615969581749 0.561755894193 110% => OK
syllable_count: 453.6 506.74238477 90% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 5.43587174349 92% => OK
Article: 3.0 2.52805611222 119% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.10420841683 238% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.76152304609 126% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 16.0721442886 81% => 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: 20.0 20.2975951904 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 44.9316377512 49.4020404114 91% => OK
Chars per sentence: 113.076923077 106.682146367 106% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.2307692308 20.7667163134 97% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.6923076923 7.06120827912 151% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.01903807615 40% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.67935871743 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 0.0 3.9879759519 0% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 3.4128256513 88% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.286215703132 0.244688304435 117% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.108111941278 0.084324248473 128% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0726346167256 0.0667982634062 109% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.198383715166 0.151304729494 131% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0516912757421 0.056905535591 91% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.0 13.0946893788 115% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 42.72 50.2224549098 85% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.44779559118 150% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 11.3001002004 109% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.14 12.4159519038 122% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.31 8.58950901804 108% => OK
difficult_words: 78.0 78.4519038076 99% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 9.78957915832 107% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.1190380762 99% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 10.7795591182 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 61.797752809 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.5 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.