In the past, it was easier to identify what type of career or job would lead to a secure, successful future
The advent of technology and new business patterns sheds light on the booming of myriad new occupations, which leads to the uncertainty in defining which jobs to be viable in this day and age. I assure that this phenomenon emerged is due to the higher number of careers and the governmental control in business operations.
Admittedly, sorting out secure and stable jobs in the present time is much tiring owing to the grandiose figure of jobs. It is true that almost all governments in the world currently welcome the business of multinational companies and giant corporations in their countries, which benefits the labor markets. Furthermore, with the technological innovations, several new-formed jobs such as graphic designers, data analysts or account managers are created. These positions are strange with most of the elderly who customarily ascertain that only subsistence wage will be offered. As a result, the soaring number of newly-added occupations has challenged people in making a good prediction as to which one is secure while it requires only a simple guess in the past.
Furthermore, the difference in the business control of the government has made the selection for secure and successful jobs turn arduous at present. A conventional belief rooted at length signifies that working in the government's companies could support workers with pension and fringe benefits. These two elements were needed to find out whether a certain job was stable or not in the past when a good job was defined as the fixed payment gained monthly despite any unexpected situations happening. However, the story turns out differently in today's business market where the government intervention is not absolutely fierce. It is conspicuous that employees' payroll is now carried out by their employers who can generously offer handsome payment depending on the job responsibilities. In the modern epoch, a construction worker, for example, can receive up to 15 million VND while a blue-collar worker earns only a third of the former's salary, which makes the previous criteria obsolete and inapplicable.
By way of conclusion, there seems to be easier to declare which career is potential to follow in the past than these days.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 651, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'employees'' or 'employee's'?
Suggestion: employees'; employee's
...solutely fierce. It is conspicuous that employees payroll is now carried out by their emp...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 931, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'formers'' or 'former's'?
Suggestion: formers'; former's
...collar worker earns only a third of the formers salary, which makes the previous criter...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
furthermore, however, if, so, third, while, as to, for example, such as, as a result, it is true
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 15.1003584229 106% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 9.8082437276 41% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 13.8261648746 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 11.0286738351 136% => OK
Pronoun: 16.0 43.0788530466 37% => OK
Preposition: 52.0 52.1666666667 100% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 8.0752688172 124% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1877.0 1977.66487455 95% => OK
No of words: 356.0 407.700716846 87% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.27247191011 4.8611393121 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.34372677135 4.48103885553 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.01427792643 2.67179642975 113% => OK
Unique words: 215.0 212.727598566 101% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.60393258427 0.524837075471 115% => OK
syllable_count: 576.0 618.680645161 93% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.51630824373 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 9.59856630824 52% => OK
Article: 6.0 3.08781362007 194% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 3.51792114695 28% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.86738351254 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.94265232975 61% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 20.6003584229 68% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 25.0 20.1344086022 124% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 32.4028374923 48.9658058833 66% => OK
Chars per sentence: 134.071428571 100.406767564 134% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.4285714286 20.6045352989 123% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.85714285714 5.45110844103 126% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.5376344086 36% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 11.8709677419 84% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 3.85842293907 78% => OK
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: 0.165115556045 0.236089414692 70% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.050934620381 0.076458572812 67% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0494506629506 0.0737576698707 67% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0976993514928 0.150856017488 65% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.023507496211 0.0645574589148 36% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.1 11.7677419355 137% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 46.1 58.1214874552 79% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.10430107527 144% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.0 10.1575268817 128% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.58 10.9000537634 125% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.76 8.01818996416 122% => OK
difficult_words: 110.0 86.8835125448 127% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.0 10.002688172 150% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 10.0537634409 119% => 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: 76.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.0 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.