It is often said that gender equality in armed force workplace should be promoted. However, the issue is not entirely straightforward, and arguments can also be made against the idea. This essay will discuss both views, and give a concluding view.
On the one hand, it might be said that workforce quotas in the police or military would allow women to enter traditionally male roles ranging from police officers or soldiers. By this we mean that the opportunity may agreeably expand the pool of people available to do these jobs, clearly reducing inequality between sexes. Furthermore, proponents of female recruitment idea claim that the procedure might encourage women to enter into the workforce generally, thus increasing family income and improving the standards of livings of many individuals and families.
By contrast, opponents of this view insist that women do not fit the emotional or physical descriptions of these jobs. They are able to cite the evidence from countries such as Mexico where female police officers tend to fail to enforce laws fully. This means that the exceptions they might make for female or younger criminals, ultimately leads to them being less efficient in the work. Moreover, the it must be said that women may not meet the physical requirements of military roles which possibly makes them unable to company their peers and properly cooperate with them during missions. This asset possibly leads to disruptions or even fails in operations, as it can be seen in the US Army during Afghanistan War whereby a substantial proportion of female soldiers did not transcend the situation.
Overall, I would tend to side with those who oppose female recruitment in the police or the Army. It seems that women would not be adequately productive in such professions due to the lack of emotional and physical requirements demanded.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 53, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...said that gender equality in armed force should be promoted. However, the issue i...
^^
Line 5, column 399, Rule ID: DT_PRP[1]
Message: Possible typo. Did you mean 'the' or 'it'?
Suggestion: the; it
...g less efficient in the work. Moreover, the it must be said that women may not meet th...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, furthermore, however, may, moreover, so, thus, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 13.1623246493 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 7.85571142285 165% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 10.4138276553 115% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 7.30460921844 137% => OK
Pronoun: 28.0 24.0651302605 116% => OK
Preposition: 38.0 41.998997996 90% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 8.3376753507 60% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1538.0 1615.20841683 95% => OK
No of words: 297.0 315.596192385 94% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.17845117845 5.12529762239 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.15134772569 4.20363070211 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.80171908948 2.80592935109 100% => OK
Unique words: 178.0 176.041082164 101% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.599326599327 0.561755894193 107% => OK
syllable_count: 486.9 506.74238477 96% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.60771543086 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 5.43587174349 166% => OK
Article: 2.0 2.52805611222 79% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.10420841683 48% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 0.809619238477 247% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 2.0 4.76152304609 42% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
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: 22.0 20.2975951904 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 51.5414465266 49.4020404114 104% => OK
Chars per sentence: 118.307692308 106.682146367 111% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.8461538462 20.7667163134 110% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.61538461538 7.06120827912 65% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.01903807615 40% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.67935871743 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 3.9879759519 150% => OK
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: 0.178228677513 0.244688304435 73% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0629291755725 0.084324248473 75% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0371687850632 0.0667982634062 56% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.104463565708 0.151304729494 69% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.00692297054851 0.056905535591 12% => 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: 14.4 13.0946893788 110% => 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: 13.06 12.4159519038 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.14 8.58950901804 106% => OK
difficult_words: 83.0 78.4519038076 106% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 9.78957915832 87% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.1190380762 107% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.7795591182 83% => 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.