People who read for pleasure have better imagination and reading skills than those who prefer watching TV.
To what extent do you agree?
Books have been among most popular entertainments for the entire human history. Some people suppose that reading on a leisure time entails stronger imagination as well as aids to read in a more efficient manner. I am of the oppinion that people who prefer watching TV have less developed imagination and reading skills.
Books usually have much less pictures than TV shows forcing readers to dream by themselves. Due to the fact that human brain require visual information to completely process actions, that are frequently appear in both cases, people have to provide some images. Since such situation is common for readers, their cortexes outperforms TV lovers’ minds in generating visual information. For example, painters are always people who read a lot. In other words, books are the essential component for a great imagination.
Reading cabilities, like any other type of skills, are improving during continuous repetitions. Individuals who spend free time with books are constatnly perform the same action which renders their brain to improve and read efficiently. Moreover, people who prefer to watch TV do not have enough time to properly develop reading abilities. For instance, average american citizen who have a TV at home tend to watch it for about two hours every day while the others progresses in reading. Thus, TV lovers have a significant disadvantage during book consumption.
In conclusion, I strongly agree that reading for pleasure leads to better developed imagination and reading skills than watching TV. It involves much more mental effort making peoples’ minds stronger.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 25, Rule ID: FEWER_LESS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'fewer'? The noun pictures is countable.
Suggestion: fewer
...ding skills. Books usually have much less pictures than TV shows forcing readers ...
^^^^
Line 3, column 204, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'appeared'.
Suggestion: appeared
...ly process actions, that are frequently appear in both cases, people have to provide s...
^^^^^^
Line 3, column 417, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'peopled'.
Suggestion: peopled
...ation. For example, painters are always people who read a lot. In other words, books a...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
if, moreover, so, thus, well, while, for example, for instance, in conclusion, as well as, in other words
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 7.0 13.1623246493 53% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 0.0 7.85571142285 0% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 10.4138276553 29% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 11.0 7.30460921844 151% => OK
Pronoun: 12.0 24.0651302605 50% => OK
Preposition: 28.0 41.998997996 67% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 8.3376753507 108% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1359.0 1615.20841683 84% => OK
No of words: 253.0 315.596192385 80% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.37154150198 5.12529762239 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.98822939669 4.20363070211 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.7928642309 2.80592935109 100% => OK
Unique words: 160.0 176.041082164 91% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.632411067194 0.561755894193 113% => OK
syllable_count: 414.9 506.74238477 82% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.60771543086 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 5.43587174349 92% => OK
Article: 0.0 2.52805611222 0% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.10420841683 48% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.76152304609 84% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 16.0721442886 93% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 20.2975951904 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 32.1572525084 49.4020404114 65% => OK
Chars per sentence: 90.6 106.682146367 85% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.8666666667 20.7667163134 81% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.0 7.06120827912 99% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.01903807615 60% => 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: 5.0 3.4128256513 147% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.485544726749 0.244688304435 198% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.162728361189 0.084324248473 193% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.141038519817 0.0667982634062 211% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.313490894171 0.151304729494 207% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.068655030094 0.056905535591 121% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.3 13.0946893788 94% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 55.24 50.2224549098 110% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 11.3001002004 84% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.57 12.4159519038 109% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.11 8.58950901804 106% => OK
difficult_words: 75.0 78.4519038076 96% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 9.78957915832 87% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 10.1190380762 83% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.7795591182 83% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
More content wanted.
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.