Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? In the past, it was easier to identify what type of career job would lead to a secure, successful future. (TPO39-Task2)
Occupation, the foundation of quality life, has been valued and even triggers heated discussion over whether it was easier to identify what kinds of jobs would lead to a secure and successful future. Predicting that, in some people's view, is effortless in modern times. On the contrary, my perspective is that it is more arduous to identify the future of an occupation than before.
To begin with, never should we ignore that the rapidly changing world makes predicting the future impossible. With the development of technology, there are always the birth of new jobs and the disappearance of previously prominent occupation. Therefore, we can not tell whether a promising career today will have no prospects or even disappear in the future. The advent of robots and AI, for example, has replaced humans in assorted fields such as accounting, security, and public transportation. Being an accountant might be a rewarding and promising career in the past. However, as machine learning technology learn this task, this profession will no longer require most people. Besides, international relation is changing faster than before, causing it onerous to predict the future of a career. For instance, china's high-tech industry such as mobile phones or robots seems like a promising field. However, due to the conflict with the USA, China can not import some vital electronic chips, preventing the development of these fields and thus many workers lose their jobs. In contrast, before globalization, careers were less vulnerable to international relations. Therefore, predicting the future of occupation, with no doubt, is arduous compared with decades ago.
In addition, it is also well acknowledged that the fierce competition in contemporary times leads to the failure of predicting the future of a career. Predicting whether an occupation is secure tremendously depends on an employee’s personal characteristics. Even if people choose a seemingly secure job, without competence or diligence, losing a job is still possible. Specifically, people nowadays have to work hard in order to keep their job. For example, they need to improve their work efficiency and reduce the time of getting distracted during the work hour, so they will make more contributions to the company. Only in this way can they secure their job and get promoted. Otherwise, they may suffer from unemployment if other people work more diligently. This phenomenon is not common in the past since there was less competition and people are only required to accomplish the task they have assigned to. As a result, it is effortless to determine whether a career is secure and promising.
In conclusion, the higher speed of the world change and the increasingly fierce competition in modern society contribute to the consequence that predicting the future of a career is difficult than before.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, besides, but, however, if, may, so, still, therefore, thus, well, for example, for instance, in addition, in conclusion, in contrast, no doubt, such as, as a result, on the contrary, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 15.1003584229 132% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 9.8082437276 112% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 13.8261648746 108% => OK
Relative clauses : 5.0 11.0286738351 45% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 27.0 43.0788530466 63% => OK
Preposition: 63.0 52.1666666667 121% => 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: 2420.0 1977.66487455 122% => OK
No of words: 455.0 407.700716846 112% => OK
Chars per words: 5.31868131868 4.8611393121 109% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.61852021839 4.48103885553 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.0181354191 2.67179642975 113% => OK
Unique words: 247.0 212.727598566 116% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.542857142857 0.524837075471 103% => OK
syllable_count: 762.3 618.680645161 123% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.51630824373 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 9.59856630824 83% => OK
Article: 3.0 3.08781362007 97% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 3.51792114695 114% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.86738351254 54% => OK
Preposition: 10.0 4.94265232975 202% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 20.6003584229 117% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 20.1344086022 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 38.890314954 48.9658058833 79% => OK
Chars per sentence: 100.833333333 100.406767564 100% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.9583333333 20.6045352989 92% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.41666666667 5.45110844103 154% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.5376344086 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 11.8709677419 93% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 3.85842293907 259% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.88709677419 61% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.204416301465 0.236089414692 87% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.054599426754 0.076458572812 71% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0531301235397 0.0737576698707 72% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.125455471493 0.150856017488 83% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0599985147805 0.0645574589148 93% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.1 11.7677419355 111% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 44.75 58.1214874552 77% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.10430107527 144% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 10.1575268817 113% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.58 10.9000537634 125% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.18 8.01818996416 114% => OK
difficult_words: 134.0 86.8835125448 154% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 10.002688172 120% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.0537634409 92% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 10.247311828 117% => 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: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.0 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.