Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?
Children rely too much on technology, like computers, smartphones, video games for fun and entertainment. Playing simpler toys or playing outside with friends would be better for children’s development.
By and large, children have perennially been playing various games as entertainment to fill their leisure time. In this regard, due to the expansion of technology, the dependence of children to technological instruments is becoming more than before. There has been no shortage of debates among scholars on whether it is more beneficial for children to play with their computers and smartphones or its excellence pales in comparison with playing simpler toys or playing outside with friends. From my vantage point, children should play with their friends instead of playing with computers, smartphones, video games, and so on. In what follows, two elaborate reasons will vindicate my standpoint.
The first compelling reason corroborating my idea is that playing with friends in childhood, enhance the social skills of children. It is crystal clear that children having better social skills will have a more appropriate position in society in the future. Children can learn how to interact with others in different situations and modify their behavior. Also, the ability of teamwork that is a crucial skill for individuals lies deep within playing with friends in childhood. Therefore, learning such skills can pave the way to the prosperity of children. By way of illustration, when I was a child, I usually spend time with my friends outside of our home. We played different kinds of games, like football, volleyball, and some traditional games. Not only did I learn teamwork in group games, but also I the effects of those games had a pivotal role in my career position. I work for a company as a master of programming section. My boss chose me for that position due to my social abilities and appropriate behavior with my colleagues. If I had played with computer games instead of playing with my friends, I would not have had such social skills, and my boss might not have chosen me as the master of that section.
Furthermore, the other kind of mentioned games is detrimental for children. It is axiomatic that parents could not always monitor their children what kinds of computer games they play. Moreover, there are numerous computer and mobile games that many of them have improper content. Such games could negatively affect children's behavioral orientation. For example, a game that the mission of its roles is killing others might make children aggressive. As a case in point, my friend was incredibly interested in computer games when he was a child. Many of those games, which my friend played, had the war contents and he usually dealt with blood and death. Consequently, his behavior became worse day-to-day. Four years ago, in a street quarrel, he couldn't control himself and killed someone. He would have controlled himself if he had not played those computer games in his childhood. Thus, playing computer games and other games like it could have some irrecoverable results.
By perusing the above paragraphs, one can infer that the most appropriate kinds of game for children is playing outside with friends. For the sake of brevity, a couple of points are worth reiterating: First, children by playing with their friend will improve their social skills which help them to have a better career position in future; second, computer games have adverse effects on children.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 746, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: couldn't
...Four years ago, in a street quarrel, he couldnt control himself and killed someone. He ...
^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 328, Rule ID: IN_PAST[1]
Message: Did you mean: 'in the future'?
Suggestion: in the future
...p them to have a better career position in future; second, computer games have adverse ef...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, consequently, first, furthermore, if, moreover, second, so, therefore, thus, for example, kind of, by and large
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 15.1003584229 106% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 9.8082437276 143% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 13.8261648746 108% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 11.0286738351 118% => OK
Pronoun: 61.0 43.0788530466 142% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 78.0 52.1666666667 150% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 8.0752688172 149% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2755.0 1977.66487455 139% => OK
No of words: 541.0 407.700716846 133% => OK
Chars per words: 5.09242144177 4.8611393121 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.82280071112 4.48103885553 108% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.7498073774 2.67179642975 103% => OK
Unique words: 256.0 212.727598566 120% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.473197781885 0.524837075471 90% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 819.0 618.680645161 132% => 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: 6.0 3.08781362007 194% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 3.51792114695 85% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.86738351254 214% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 8.0 4.94265232975 162% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 29.0 20.6003584229 141% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 20.1344086022 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 46.269386463 48.9658058833 94% => OK
Chars per sentence: 95.0 100.406767564 95% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.6551724138 20.6045352989 91% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.20689655172 5.45110844103 77% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.5376344086 36% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 16.0 11.8709677419 135% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 3.85842293907 130% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.88709677419 164% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.361353267944 0.236089414692 153% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.107699220922 0.076458572812 141% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0802675334343 0.0737576698707 109% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.266914186496 0.150856017488 177% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.062218189962 0.0645574589148 96% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.9 11.7677419355 101% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 61.67 58.1214874552 106% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.10430107527 51% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 10.1575268817 90% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.24 10.9000537634 112% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.0 8.01818996416 100% => OK
difficult_words: 119.0 86.8835125448 137% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 10.002688172 140% => 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: 73.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.0 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.