Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Children today would be happier with
fewer possessions.
I disagree with the opinion that children today would be happier with fewer possessions. I feel this way for many reasons which I will explore in the following essay.
First of all, the importance of possessions is different from child to child. SWome kids value possessions more than others. As a result, some youngsters will consider their belongings such as toys, smart phones, bicycles, clothes etc. very significant and essential to their well-being as it makes them happier. However, other children will find their joy in social recognition and just chilling with others. They are even more generous with their possessions and ready to give whatever they have to other people only for the sake of social accomplishment. My own experience is a compelling experience on this fact. When my niece was a young kid, she used to give away her toys and food to my nephew. She was not as attached to materialistic possessions as my nephew was. Nevertheless, she was more out-going and enjoyed talking to strangers and establishing new relationships. Definitely, she found her passion and happiness in something else other than possessions. On the other hand, my nephew was more reserved and more focused on his personal items. Thus, having fewer possessions meant less delight for my nephew but did not matter for my niece because they had totally unique personalities. Evidently, some children could suffer with fewer possessions while others will not really care.
Second, deprivation is mostly linked to misery and negative consequences. I remember when I was chatting with a friend and I said "need is suffering". My friend's reply was a bit surprise for me as she said "I'd rather satisfy the need than to suffer". Hence, children of well-off parents are not less happy than children of low-income families. In fact, it's the opposite in most of the cases. A child of an affluent caregiver could easily meet her or his basic needs and will have enough assets to be happy. In addition, if parents decided to deny their offspring's demands claiming that the lesser possessions, the happier the child will be, this will surely backfire on the family as the little kid will end up with subconscious resentment towards the "unfair" parents especially if they were capable but chose not to follow through. Generally speaking, a child with unsatisfied needs could definitely grow to behave inadequately in the community. Fewer belongings never contributes to a higher level of happiness.
In conclusion, possessions play a varying role in the life of different girls and boys, and the attachment to various types of things fluctuates from one personality to the other according to their nurture and nature. Moreover, deprived youngsters are more likely to be unhappy compared to cared-for kids. Lastly, enforcing a denial rule for necessary needs could have a massive unwanted impact on the child and the family
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 1170, Rule ID: VERY_UNIQUE[1]
Message: Use simply 'unique'.
Suggestion: unique
...ot matter for my niece because they had totally unique personalities. Evidently, some children...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 223, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: I'd
...a bit surprise for me as she said 'Id rather satisfy the need than to suffer&...
^^
Line 7, column 374, Rule ID: IT_IS[6]
Message: Did you mean 'it's' (='it is') instead of 'its' (possessive pronoun)?
Suggestion: it's; it is
...ildren of low-income families. In fact, its the opposite in most of the cases. A ch...
^^^
Line 11, column 423, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...anted impact on the child and the family
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, hence, however, if, lastly, moreover, nevertheless, really, second, so, thus, well, while, as to, i feel, in addition, in conclusion, in fact, such as, as a result, first of all, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 15.1003584229 132% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 9.8082437276 153% => OK
Conjunction : 18.0 13.8261648746 130% => OK
Relative clauses : 5.0 11.0286738351 45% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 43.0 43.0788530466 100% => OK
Preposition: 59.0 52.1666666667 113% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 8.0752688172 111% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2470.0 1977.66487455 125% => OK
No of words: 478.0 407.700716846 117% => OK
Chars per words: 5.16736401674 4.8611393121 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.67581127817 4.48103885553 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.96491272141 2.67179642975 111% => OK
Unique words: 266.0 212.727598566 125% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.556485355649 0.524837075471 106% => OK
syllable_count: 755.1 618.680645161 122% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.51630824373 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 13.0 9.59856630824 135% => OK
Article: 4.0 3.08781362007 130% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 3.51792114695 85% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.86738351254 54% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.94265232975 81% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 28.0 20.6003584229 136% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 20.1344086022 84% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 55.7124083933 48.9658058833 114% => OK
Chars per sentence: 88.2142857143 100.406767564 88% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.0714285714 20.6045352989 83% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.42857142857 5.45110844103 136% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.5376344086 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 18.0 11.8709677419 152% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 3.85842293907 156% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.88709677419 82% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.151909979368 0.236089414692 64% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0444155076445 0.076458572812 58% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0981134666392 0.0737576698707 133% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.143351659403 0.150856017488 95% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.143008924411 0.0645574589148 222% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.5 11.7677419355 98% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 54.22 58.1214874552 93% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.10430107527 51% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 10.1575268817 97% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.41 10.9000537634 114% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.58 8.01818996416 107% => OK
difficult_words: 124.0 86.8835125448 143% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 5.5 10.002688172 55% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.0537634409 88% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.247311828 88% => 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: 90.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 27.0 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.