Some people who have been in prison become good citizens later, and it is often argued that these are the best people to talk to teenagers about the danger of committing a crime. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
There is an opinion asserting that the best groups of people to warn adolescents about the negative consequences of violating laws are those who have already been kept in jail and then became free and a good resident afterwards. I, for one, only partially agree with the given statement on the basis of some compelling reasons.
On the one hand, these so-called former delinquents may carry invaluable lessons with themselves. Being behind bars for some time and becoming free again to compensate for their mistakes, these former criminals now are completely aware of the negative results of acts of crime. Letting the youth hear their speech and their appalling experiences would lay the groundwork for deterrent of any feasibility of teenagers to fall prey to crime in the future. These previously felons would also provide illuminations about the main culprits that made them break the law in the first place. Thus, adolescents would get a good understanding of what specific behavior would lead them to dangerous activities.
On the other hand, the reason why I think these former prisoners might not be the best people for this matter is that young teenagers might choose them as their role models. In other words, they might conceive that no matter what they do, even if they commit a crime, one day they become free again. So, they can continue living without any problems. Therefore, they might not take acts of violence and crime seriously. There could also be bad advice in wrongdoers' consultation. In fact, there is no guarantee that all they counsel children to do, or not to do, is sound and wise. Thus, other means of deterring teenagers from the imminent dangers of committing felonies seem more logical.
In conclusion, I am not entirely against the idea of using former lawbreakers that are now good citizens to tell about the possible dangers of juvenile crimes. However, it seems that there could be better measures to be employed in this respect.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 218, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[2]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'afterward'?
Suggestion: afterward
...nd then became free and a good resident afterwards. I, for one, only partially agree with ...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, however, if, may, so, then, therefore, thus, i think, in conclusion, in fact, in other words, in the first place, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 13.1623246493 99% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 7.85571142285 153% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 10.4138276553 67% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 7.30460921844 110% => OK
Pronoun: 32.0 24.0651302605 133% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 43.0 41.998997996 102% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 8.3376753507 36% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1642.0 1615.20841683 102% => OK
No of words: 330.0 315.596192385 105% => OK
Chars per words: 4.97575757576 5.12529762239 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.26214759535 4.20363070211 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.6025769528 2.80592935109 93% => OK
Unique words: 196.0 176.041082164 111% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.593939393939 0.561755894193 106% => OK
syllable_count: 503.1 506.74238477 99% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.60771543086 93% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 5.43587174349 147% => OK
Article: 1.0 2.52805611222 40% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.10420841683 48% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 0.809619238477 124% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.76152304609 105% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 16.0721442886 100% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 20.2975951904 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 47.9407186012 49.4020404114 97% => OK
Chars per sentence: 102.625 106.682146367 96% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.625 20.7667163134 99% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.0 7.06120827912 127% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.67935871743 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 3.9879759519 226% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 3.4128256513 29% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.243079026478 0.244688304435 99% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0626505198709 0.084324248473 74% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0463535664094 0.0667982634062 69% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.13002794694 0.151304729494 86% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0394883049503 0.056905535591 69% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.3 13.0946893788 94% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 59.64 50.2224549098 119% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.44779559118 42% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.3001002004 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.6 12.4159519038 93% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.22 8.58950901804 96% => OK
difficult_words: 75.0 78.4519038076 96% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 9.78957915832 138% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.1190380762 99% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 10.7795591182 93% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 84.2696629213 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.5 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.