A city wants to help teachers of its high school students (age14-18) improve their teaching. It is considering two plans:
1. Choose a small group of excellent teachers; these teachers will attend a class led by an expert for additional training in how to teach effectively, and they will then come back to their schools and provide that training for other teachers in school.
2. Provide additional training in teaching effectively for high school teachers, using online material that each teacher will study individually.
In contemporary society, where rarely does a country underestimate the importance of education, it comes as no surprise that elevating the competence of teachers in high school have always been amongst governments' top priorities. A simple recognition of this argument leads our discussion to the controversial question of how to enrich the teacher's knowledge. Some adhere to the brief that only preeminent teachers should be taught by the expert and then impart their information to others and an alternative strategy competing with it is that all tutors expand their knowledge individually by online material. I am inclined to concur with the first idea, and in the ensuing paragraph the rationale behind the statement will be further elaborated.
The foremost factor tipping the competitive advantage away from the latter toward the former is the efficiency. As is often the case, studying on the Internet makes it more possible for people to be distracted by many temptations, such as emailing friends, playing computer games and even shopping. On the contrary, the instructors learning involved in the face-to-face training are more than likely to be preoccupied with the lecture from the more sophisticated person. In addition, since the question is the constant companion of acquiring knowledge, we probably encounter some conundrums which cannot be resolved by ourselves, even though we have racked our brains. But provided that there is a guide who can lead us through those mazes, it will not only broaden our knowledge but also lift my spirt immensely, which undoubtedly dramatically improves our learning efficiency as well.
Another significant reason which deserves attention is the effectiveness. One of the crippling disadvantages suffered from by the later plan is the glaring deficiency of supervision. The supervision is destined to be an insuperable hurdle in the online learning on account of the fact that the slothful learners can let the computer play the course videos in the absence of themselves. What's worse, those excellent teachers may have no choice but to resort to the method due to the tight schedule, which will undeniably impair the effectiveness.
With all the above factors taken into consideration, we can logically reach a conclusion that it is more advisable to select the representatives to receive the professional cultivation.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 341, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'teachers'' or 'teacher's'?
Suggestion: teachers'; teacher's
...roversial question of how to enrich the teachers knowledge. Some adhere to the brief tha...
^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 387, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: What's
...se videos in the absence of themselves. Whats worse, those excellent teachers may hav...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, if, may, so, then, well, in addition, such as, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 15.1003584229 113% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 9.8082437276 92% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 13.8261648746 51% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 12.0 11.0286738351 109% => OK
Pronoun: 28.0 43.0788530466 65% => OK
Preposition: 50.0 52.1666666667 96% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 8.0752688172 173% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2009.0 1977.66487455 102% => OK
No of words: 372.0 407.700716846 91% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.40053763441 4.8611393121 111% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.39173103935 4.48103885553 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.12637413423 2.67179642975 117% => OK
Unique words: 227.0 212.727598566 107% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.610215053763 0.524837075471 116% => OK
syllable_count: 630.9 618.680645161 102% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.51630824373 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 9.59856630824 63% => OK
Article: 4.0 3.08781362007 130% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 3.51792114695 85% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.86738351254 107% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.94265232975 101% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 20.6003584229 68% => 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: 26.0 20.1344086022 129% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 49.2551147246 48.9658058833 101% => OK
Chars per sentence: 143.5 100.406767564 143% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.5714285714 20.6045352989 129% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.71428571429 5.45110844103 105% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.5376344086 36% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 11.8709677419 76% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 3.85842293907 104% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.88709677419 20% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.11086272557 0.236089414692 47% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0325158523209 0.076458572812 43% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0356426991964 0.0737576698707 48% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0579691196239 0.150856017488 38% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0526716167227 0.0645574589148 82% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.3 11.7677419355 147% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 36.63 58.1214874552 63% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 6.10430107527 183% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.6 10.1575268817 144% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.34 10.9000537634 132% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.1 8.01818996416 126% => OK
difficult_words: 122.0 86.8835125448 140% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.0 10.002688172 150% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 10.0537634409 123% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 10.247311828 146% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Better to have 5 paragraphs with 3 arguments. And try always support/against one side but compare two sides, like this:
para 1: introduction
para 2: reason 1. address both of the views presented for reason 1
para 3: reason 2. address both of the views presented for reason 2
para 4: reason 3. address both of the views presented for reason 3
para 5: conclusion.
So how to find out those reasons. There is a formula:
reasons == advantages or
reasons == disadvantages
for example, we can always apply 'save time', 'save/make money', 'find a job', 'make friends', 'get more information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.
or we can apply 'waste time', 'waste money', 'no job', 'make bad friends', 'get bad information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.
Rates: 85.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 25.5 Out of 30
---------------------
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.