By and large, in the modern era which we live governments have substantial effects on almost all our life aspects. While there are a plethora of people who are in the conviction that this intervention must comprise animals and wilderness area protection, in the favor of next generations, others hold a radically different perspective. To the extent that my personal opinion is concerned, I accord with the first group. Among countless reasons which give adherence to my point of view, I will delve into the most conspicuous ones in what follows.
First of all, the nature environment is not just for us to enjoy. Any form of selfish attitude toward wilderness areas, can deprive our next generations from enjoying the nature. Though, there are always those who entitle themselves to destructing the nature, with ridiculous alibies such as construction, and so forth. The government is by far, the only entity that has the power to stop them and put an end to their destructive behaviors. Take Gilan, a green land with spectacular views of trees and springs, for example. The area was about to be a desert literally, when the congressmen decided to interfere with some human's destructive activities. Enacting protective laws by governments, can show people that the politicians not only care about people, but also about their next generations to come.
Secondly, any change in an eco-system can lead to catastrophic results in the future. The butter fly effect of any distortment in wild animal's proportion can endanger the existence of next generations in many ways. Tehran, the capital of Iran, has one of the most polluted airs in the world. The arrogance of elder generation toward nature, transformed a once green village into an industrial city with no green space in it. This lack of competency resulted in the extinction of certain birds and commenced the cyclic extinction of others through a significant change in the chain food. Trees were unable to pollinate more efficiently and therefore were unable to expand their territory. Now we are facing a generation of ill people, struggling with all sorts of cancer for their unhealthy environment. The government, 50 years ago, didn't pay too much attention to this vital issue and consequently neither did people. And as a matter of fact why would they? Since they were not breaking any rule and were able to enjoy more production.
In short, all the aforementioned reasons and explanations lead us to the conclusion that it's essential for the government to interfere with any destructive behavior toward animals or wilderness in favor of next generations.
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?After high school, students should have at least one year to work or travel.It's better than attending university straight away. 73
- Some people say that the Internet provides people with a lot of valuable information. Others think access to much information creates problems. Which view do you agree with? Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer. 80
- It is better to take a secure job with a low pay than to take a job with a high pay but is easy to lose 70
- Do you agree or disagree? People gain more happiness from their jobs than their social life. 90
- 5 Aug: Many companies provide important products or services, but also damage the environment. Some people believe that the best way to stop companies from harming the environment is to require them to pay a penalty such as higher tax or a large fine when 90
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 359, Rule ID: PERSONAL_OPINION_FRIENDSHIP
Message: Use simply 'opinion'.
...rent perspective. To the extent that my personal opinion is concerned, I accord with the first g...
Line 3, column 834, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
...ironment. The government, 50 years ago, didnt pay too much attention to this vital is...
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, consequently, first, if, second, secondly, so, therefore, while, for example, in short, such as, as a matter of fact, by and large, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 15.1003584229 86% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 9.8082437276 71% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 13.8261648746 94% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 11.0286738351 91% => OK
Pronoun: 29.0 43.0788530466 67% => OK
Preposition: 71.0 52.1666666667 136% => OK
Nominalization: 20.0 8.0752688172 248% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2192.0 1977.66487455 111% => OK
No of words: 431.0 407.700716846 106% => OK
Chars per words: 5.08584686775 4.8611393121 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.55637350225 4.48103885553 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.92096533351 2.67179642975 109% => OK
Unique words: 252.0 212.727598566 118% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.584686774942 0.524837075471 111% => OK
syllable_count: 689.4 618.680645161 111% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.51630824373 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 9.59856630824 31% => OK
Article: 9.0 3.08781362007 291% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 3.0 3.51792114695 85% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.86738351254 161% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 4.94265232975 162% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 20.6003584229 107% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 20.1344086022 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 43.6243591442 48.9658058833 89% => OK
Chars per sentence: 99.6363636364 100.406767564 99% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.5909090909 20.6045352989 95% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.04545454545 5.45110844103 129% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.5376344086 36% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 11.8709677419 67% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 3.85842293907 259% => Less negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.171891205992 0.236089414692 73% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0430277204158 0.076458572812 56% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0504417565706 0.0737576698707 68% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.119663298649 0.150856017488 79% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.053251036517 0.0645574589148 82% => OK
automated_readability_index: 12.3 11.7677419355 105% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 58.1214874552 90% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.10430107527 144% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 10.1575268817 105% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.24 10.9000537634 112% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.65 8.01818996416 108% => OK
difficult_words: 111.0 86.8835125448 128% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.002688172 110% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.0537634409 95% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 10.247311828 107% => 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.