In the modern era, teachers are regarded as crucial factors contributing to the thriving of youngsters in various aspects of their lives. One of the heated debates in this realm is associated with the off-topic discussions made by teachers inside the classrooms. Many people adhere to the view that the political talks are informative and influential for students, while others found them time-consuming and inappropriate. Ego, when it comes to my stance, by weighing up the pros and cons of both perspectives, I firmly hold that the teachers should not be allowed to talk about social matters in the class. In what follows, I will cogently pinpoint my most conspicuous reasons to justify my point of view.
The first exquisite point to be mentioned is that these discussions do not have any outcome and waste our valuable time. Since it is hard to persuade people about the deficiency of their thoughts, the final results of political talks are literally nothing. As a matter of fact, some students bring up these notions in the class in order to sabotage the class and distract the teachers from the main objective of the syllabus. My personal experience is a compelling example of this. During high school, I had a physics course, the teacher of which was into politics. One of my classmates, who found the class tedious, started an argument in the class by mentioning a recent political situation. Then, the professor started lecturing about it for more than half of the time of the course. As a result, not only did not we find his views convincing, but we also did not understand the main subjects that we signed up for. That is why I suppose they are a waste of time.
Another equally significant point to be mentioned is that the teachers do not have a broad knowledge of these criteria. Most of them can not analyze the news like experts. Also, they use familiar news sources, such as television programs and reputable websites. As a result, their speeches would be repetitions of subjects that we are already aware of. Even In other cases, their conclusions might be wrong and mislead the students in their future decisions. For instance, four years ago, during high school, our government started some projects by building houses in the countrysides. One of our instructors began analyzing this situation and suggested us to invest money on these houses because it would be significantly profitable. Consequently, some of my friends asked their parents to spend their money on this project. However, having been built on awful sites, these houses did not become popular among people so that the investors lost a lot of money.
In brief, contemplating all the aforementioned reasons, one soon realizes that political speeches should not find their way into schools. This is because they consume considerable amounts of time, and the teachers might not have adequate information to analyze them, which makes them misleading.
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Teachers should not make their social or political views known to students in the classroom.Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer. 80
- Do yo agree or disagree with the following statement? The rules that societies today expect young people to follow and obey are too strict. 3
- some people believe that video games could inspire young student's interests and make their study more efficient rather than distracting them and the waste of time so young student should be allowed to play video games 90
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? The most important aspect of a job is the money a person earns. Use specific reasons and details to support your answer 70
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?In the past, young people depended too much on their parents to make decisions for them; today young people are better able to make decisions about their own lives.Use specific reasons and examples to 90
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, consequently, first, however, if, so, then, while, for instance, i suppose, in brief, such as, as a matter of fact, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 15.1003584229 132% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 9.8082437276 82% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 13.8261648746 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 11.0286738351 118% => OK
Pronoun: 57.0 43.0788530466 132% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 71.0 52.1666666667 136% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 8.0752688172 87% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2452.0 1977.66487455 124% => OK
No of words: 491.0 407.700716846 120% => OK
Chars per words: 4.99389002037 4.8611393121 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.70728369723 4.48103885553 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.79821799256 2.67179642975 105% => OK
Unique words: 266.0 212.727598566 125% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.541751527495 0.524837075471 103% => OK
syllable_count: 751.5 618.680645161 121% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.51630824373 99% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 11.0 9.59856630824 115% => OK
Article: 4.0 3.08781362007 130% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 3.51792114695 171% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.86738351254 107% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.94265232975 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 25.0 20.6003584229 121% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 20.1344086022 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 35.145730893 48.9658058833 72% => OK
Chars per sentence: 98.08 100.406767564 98% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.64 20.6045352989 95% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.52 5.45110844103 101% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.5376344086 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 11.8709677419 76% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 3.85842293907 181% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 9.0 4.88709677419 184% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.151936165 0.236089414692 64% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0382690155881 0.076458572812 50% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0271937990676 0.0737576698707 37% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0957885947361 0.150856017488 63% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0234110919645 0.0645574589148 36% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
automated_readability_index: 11.9 11.7677419355 101% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 60.65 58.1214874552 104% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.10430107527 144% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 10.1575268817 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.66 10.9000537634 107% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.79 8.01818996416 110% => OK
difficult_words: 131.0 86.8835125448 151% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 10.002688172 145% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.0537634409 95% => 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: 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.