playing with peers and playing with simple toys
A glance at people's attitude toward children's nurturing brings to the light a question that has been asked repeatedly, namely, whether it is more beneficial for children to spend their time on technology or playing outside with their friends or playing with simple toys. Some people holding the perspective that it is far more beneficial for children to play on technological gadgets like computers, PlayStation, mobile phones, to name but a few. However, others stay on another side of the continuum, believing that playing outdoor activities or with simple toys is far more advantageous for children. As far as I am concerned, I am of the last group, believing that children who raised by playing with their peers or simple toys get more benefits. The reasons to substantiate my viewpoint is elaborated upon hereunder.
First, it is developing a social skill that comes as a consequence of playing with their peers. Nowadays the crucial part to succeed is to be able to communicate with other people more efficiently. A great way for developing and practicing such skills is by playing with one's peers. As a tangible example, having played with his peers in our neighborhood, my little border has broadened his social skill. If he did not play with children of their age, he may become a disappointed child. He has learned how to communicate and cope with others more efficiently. Had not he spent his time playing with his peers, He would not have become a prosperous person in communicating. Therefore, developed social abilities can be enumerated as a vital implication of playing with peers.
Besides, with no doubt, children who get used to playing with a simple toy can enjoy a greater sense of imagination. In today's world children are packed with a fantasy worlds in which there is no room for children to make imagination. Children who play with simple toys all the time imagine themselves as a new character or in a new environment, leading to increment of their imagination. An example of mine can drive this notion home. For instance, having used to play some game boards, I was obsessed with making an imaginary situation in which I was a leading businessman. So, I had a better imagination compared with my peers who used to play video games called PlayStation. IF I had not played a game board, I would have a weak imagination ability. Thus, playing with simple toys give rises to children's imagination ability.
Admittedly, playing and spending time with technology has some merits that none can deny. It is a wonderful way to get familiar with technology trends in society. However, I still claim that even though it will prepare children for their potential job opportunities in their future, it leads to a decrease in the children's communication ability. Thus, so its pros cannot vanquish its cons.
In conclusion, having considered all the reasons and examples into consideration. I believe that it is far more beneficial for children to play with their peers and play with simple toys rather than play or spend time on technology. Not only does it provide them a great enhancement in imagination ability, but also it nurtures their communication ability.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 272, Rule ID: ONES[1]
Message: Did you mean 'one's'?
Suggestion: one's
...acticing such skills is by playing with ones peers. As a tangible example, having pl...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, besides, but, first, however, if, may, so, still, therefore, thus, for instance, in conclusion, no doubt
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 15.1003584229 106% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 9.8082437276 92% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 13.8261648746 94% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 11.0286738351 127% => OK
Pronoun: 55.0 43.0788530466 128% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 73.0 52.1666666667 140% => OK
Nominalization: 19.0 8.0752688172 235% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2661.0 1977.66487455 135% => OK
No of words: 533.0 407.700716846 131% => OK
Chars per words: 4.99249530957 4.8611393121 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.80487177365 4.48103885553 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.9361304079 2.67179642975 110% => OK
Unique words: 250.0 212.727598566 118% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.46904315197 0.524837075471 89% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 825.3 618.680645161 133% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.51630824373 99% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 13.0 9.59856630824 135% => OK
Article: 4.0 3.08781362007 130% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 3.51792114695 114% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.86738351254 54% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.94265232975 81% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 28.0 20.6003584229 136% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 20.1344086022 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 46.9157407987 48.9658058833 96% => OK
Chars per sentence: 95.0357142857 100.406767564 95% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.0357142857 20.6045352989 92% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.92857142857 5.45110844103 72% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.53405017921 110% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.5376344086 18% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 20.0 11.8709677419 168% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 3.85842293907 104% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.88709677419 82% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.568818775466 0.236089414692 241% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.191711455374 0.076458572812 251% => Sentence topic similarity is high.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.151820044583 0.0737576698707 206% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.366720975062 0.150856017488 243% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.109581555203 0.0645574589148 170% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.6 11.7677419355 99% => 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: 7.78 8.01818996416 97% => OK
difficult_words: 108.0 86.8835125448 124% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 10.002688172 145% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.0537634409 95% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 10.247311828 117% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.