Imagine that you are in a classroom or a meeting. The teacher or the meeting leader says something incorrect. In your opinion, which of the following is the best thing to do? 1. Interrupt and correct the mistake right away. 2. Wait until the class or meeting is over and the people are gone, and then talk to the teacher or meeting leader; 3. Say nothing.
It is safe to say that even the most meticulous and brilliant people are prone to making mistakes. Mistakes are doors through knowledge and perfection if one learns how to correct them. Indisputably, people can help each other in this by pointing out these errors, but they have to be careful because not everyone is accepting toward criticism. Stating one's flaw recklessly can cause conflicts in friendships and relationships, and sometimes, it can lead to a bad blood. If I were to choose a way to aver people of their mistakes, I would speak to them privately for saying nothing is not helpful, and public shaming is a disgusting act.
First, people are likely to feel ashamed about being publicly pointed out by their mistakes and flaws. If I am in the stated situation, I will not choose to interrupt the speaker and correcting the error in the middle. First of all, I may make my teacher or the speaker feel embarrassed in front of the audience. Moreover, this situation can get more severe if one of the persons in the meeting is influential and essential to the speaker. Also, this act can jeopardize my positions among those people, as well. Interrupting a speech is not a polite thing to do, especially in front of other attendees. For instance, once I had a presentation for a course, and I made a mistake in between, so one of my classmates commented on my words without permission. However, my teacher found his behavior even more unacceptable and punished him right away. Flaws should be perfected, indeed, but keeping moral acts is more important.
Second, helping people in their mistakes is very important in a prosperous community. If a society is to thrive, the members have to help each other with their errors. So, if I am in the situation described in the prompt, I would not leave the meeting or class without being cleared on or clarifying a potential mistake. I will say potential since I am, also, prone to errors. This means I can be merely close-minded on the topic or have misunderstood the speaker. Thus, by discussing the mistake, either I have learned something new or the speaker. For instance, once I was not clear on what my teacher said in a sociology class. So, I asked her about the error in her words after the course. It turned out I did not understand something fundamental about the topic. Had I not tried to correct the mistake, I could have failed my class.
All in all, I would go with the second option stated in the problem statement because this way, I can preserve my moral arguments as well as help in mutual understanding of a subject.
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? “It is better for children to grow up in the countryside than in a large city.” Use specific reasons and examples to develop your essay. 76
- Imagine that you are in a classroom or a meeting. The teacher or the meeting leader says something incorrect. In your opinion, which of the following is the best thing to do? 1. Interrupt and correct the mistake right away. 2. Wait until the class or meet 70
- TPO 35 3
- TPO 41 70
- Being dishonest is ok sometimes 3
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 354, Rule ID: ONES
Message: Did you mean 'one's'?
... is accepting toward criticism. Stating ones flaw recklessly can cause conflicts in ...
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, may, moreover, second, so, thus, well, for instance, as well as, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 15.1003584229 126% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 9.8082437276 153% => OK
Conjunction : 17.0 13.8261648746 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 1.0 11.0286738351 9% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 50.0 43.0788530466 116% => OK
Preposition: 61.0 52.1666666667 117% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 8.0752688172 111% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2145.0 1977.66487455 108% => OK
No of words: 457.0 407.700716846 112% => OK
Chars per words: 4.69365426696 4.8611393121 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.62358717085 4.48103885553 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.7915840148 2.67179642975 104% => OK
Unique words: 235.0 212.727598566 110% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.514223194748 0.524837075471 98% => OK
syllable_count: 666.9 618.680645161 108% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.51630824373 99% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 16.0 9.59856630824 167% => OK
Article: 1.0 3.08781362007 32% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 3.51792114695 142% => OK
Conjunction: 5.0 1.86738351254 268% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 1.0 4.94265232975 20% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 25.0 20.6003584229 121% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 20.1344086022 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 34.5506931913 48.9658058833 71% => OK
Chars per sentence: 85.8 100.406767564 85% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.28 20.6045352989 89% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.32 5.45110844103 79% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.5376344086 18% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 11.8709677419 59% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 17.0 3.85842293907 441% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.88709677419 20% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.118024029505 0.236089414692 50% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0343543612574 0.076458572812 45% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.031216395225 0.0737576698707 42% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0627049595514 0.150856017488 42% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0447758243879 0.0645574589148 69% => OK
automated_readability_index: 9.8 11.7677419355 83% => Automated_readability_index is low.
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: 9.92 10.9000537634 91% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.95 8.01818996416 99% => OK
difficult_words: 99.0 86.8835125448 114% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.002688172 110% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.0537634409 92% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 10.247311828 98% => 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: 70.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 21.0 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.