:Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?
When classmates or colleagues communicate about a project in person instead of by e-mail, they will produce better work for the project.
Throughout the recent decades, thanks to the technological developments almost all of the in person communications can be superseded by digital ones. The effectiveness of virtual communication is one of the most controversial subjects which often provoke many discussions. Some people keep endorsing the fact that in person communication are more impressing for students whereas others dismiss this idea. Personally, it is my firm conviction that in person communication between student for their projects is much more effective. The reasons to substantiates my viewpoint are elaborated upon hereunder.
To begin with, face to face intercommunication avoid misunderstanding. Taking in to account the fact that when people are negotiating and commenting in person, they can utterly deliver their intention and propose more details about their attitude and ideas. It is crystal clear that body language is as important as the words and phonetic means in order to convey connotation. Apparently, since individuals are not able to convey their sentiment or even tune by sending e-mails, hardly the receiver is able to thoroughly understand their purpose and misinterpret the conversation. To put it in a vivid picture, our tone, facial acts and even hand movements are integral to conveying our message, and without them the message is not complete and everyone will translate it overtly.
The second pivotal reason that bear in mind is that e-mails are restricted to a defined capacity and do not allow as much as data that we desire to transmit. To delineate, the number of words that can be typed in a single e-mail, and also the maximum volume of the attached files are limited which confine us to a merely part of our speech and work. Let me illuminate my standpoint with a personal example. During the restriction caused by universally spreading of the Corona virus, my higher education courses were delivering online by using Zoom platform. However, we were obliged to send our architectural designs to the professor by e-mail and discuss our design. Vividly, architects provides many rendered images with high quality and animations in order to depict their idea. Unfortunately, owing to the limited capacity of each e-mail we were forced to concise our documents and this process led to many misinterpretations .
To put it in a nutshell, there are strong grounds for believing that it is a better choice for students to communicate face to face when negotiating about a project. This is because not only we can understand someone's intention by rendering all their words, tune, body language and so on together, but also are not we restricted to the limited capacity of a single e-mail to convey our message.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 80, Rule ID: ALL_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'all the'.
Suggestion: all the
...o the technological developments almost all of the in person communications can be superse...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 312, Rule ID: A_RB_NN[1]
Message: You used an adverb ('merely') instead an adjective, or a noun ('part') instead of another adjective.
...d files are limited which confine us to a merely part of our speech and work. Let me illumina...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 929, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Don't put a space before the full stop
Suggestion: .
...s process led to many misinterpretations . To put it in a nutshell, there are str...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, apparently, but, however, second, so, whereas, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 24.0 15.1003584229 159% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 9.8082437276 51% => OK
Conjunction : 17.0 13.8261648746 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 11.0286738351 118% => OK
Pronoun: 45.0 43.0788530466 104% => OK
Preposition: 64.0 52.1666666667 123% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 8.0752688172 149% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2277.0 1977.66487455 115% => OK
No of words: 439.0 407.700716846 108% => OK
Chars per words: 5.1867881549 4.8611393121 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.57737117129 4.48103885553 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.10408205646 2.67179642975 116% => OK
Unique words: 242.0 212.727598566 114% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.55125284738 0.524837075471 105% => OK
syllable_count: 739.8 618.680645161 120% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.51630824373 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 9.59856630824 73% => OK
Article: 4.0 3.08781362007 130% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 3.51792114695 28% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.86738351254 161% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 4.94265232975 162% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 20.6003584229 92% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 20.1344086022 114% => OK
Sentence length SD: 46.1394369865 48.9658058833 94% => OK
Chars per sentence: 119.842105263 100.406767564 119% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.1052631579 20.6045352989 112% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.47368421053 5.45110844103 64% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.5376344086 54% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 11.8709677419 59% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 3.85842293907 156% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.88709677419 123% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.178497829663 0.236089414692 76% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0508561702994 0.076458572812 67% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0552565466443 0.0737576698707 75% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.108216661367 0.150856017488 72% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0374595507252 0.0645574589148 58% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.6 11.7677419355 124% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 39.67 58.1214874552 68% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.10430107527 144% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 10.1575268817 132% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.12 10.9000537634 120% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.63 8.01818996416 120% => OK
difficult_words: 135.0 86.8835125448 155% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.002688172 80% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.0537634409 111% => 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: 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.