It's not uncommon that there are some parents paying their children as incentives for high grades, which arouses a vibrant debate over whether it is of more benefits or not for their kids' academic or career development. Some people claim that paying their children for excellent academic performance can encourage positive behaviors, while others state that money is a terrible motivator of study. Personally, I insist that the negative effects of offering money outweigh the positive ones.
Admittedly, some people will support the action of giving money since this action will enable the children to perform better academically. Students may be more industrial when they get paid since their works are recognized. However, the reality is not what we look like superficially. Since children have no idea of financial management, money naturally is not a good choice for rewarding them. Plus, children can use money to buy digital products which can pose a threat to their study to some extent. These ideas will be explained in detail.
Firstly, the giving money will spoil their kids. If you are given a huge amount of money, what would you do? Chances are that you might spent it on fulfilling your diverse desires: a splendid house, a luxury Porsche 911, an elegant Rolex watch, ect. An adult is impossible to resist such temptations, let alone the children who have no concept of money. Once they develop a bad habit of spending left and right, who else are responsible for this consequence? Thus, the wise alternative parents are supposed to adopt is to either buy something children expect for a long period of time or give they a hug with love, instead of directly giving money. It can never be too exaggerating to say that the crude solution that offering money for high grades is an inappropriate parenting.
Secondly, extra income can distract kids from study. Probably, kids will use the money to buy products -- iPad or latest iPhone. Without any doubt, these products could shift children's attention from study to video clips, games and online chats. While parents still immerse themselves in their kids' last achievements, they could not be aware of their good intentions play a negative role in their children's academic performance. Most likely they will never experience such happy time again if they don’t do some changes. Never downplay the negative effects of money regardless of its quantity. The money giving to kids might is an extremely small part of parents' income, but for children it makes a big deal. An iPhone, if not in right use, is utterly enough to ruin children's academical performance.
In short, in the sake of children's academic performance, parents should always be cautious, and giving money should never be the number one priority.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 465, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... responsible for this consequence? Thus, the wise alternative parents are suppose...
^^
Line 5, column 572, Rule ID: PERIOD_OF_TIME[1]
Message: Use simply 'period'.
Suggestion: period
...uy something children expect for a long period of time or give they a hug with love, instead o...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 615, Rule ID: TO_NON_BASE[1]
Message: The verb after "to" should be in the base form: 'kid'.
Suggestion: kid
...ss of its quantity. The money giving to kids might is an extremely small part of par...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, firstly, however, if, look, may, second, secondly, so, still, thus, while, in short
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 15.1003584229 139% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 19.0 9.8082437276 194% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 13.8261648746 58% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 12.0 11.0286738351 109% => OK
Pronoun: 40.0 43.0788530466 93% => OK
Preposition: 43.0 52.1666666667 82% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 8.0752688172 124% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2323.0 1977.66487455 117% => OK
No of words: 459.0 407.700716846 113% => OK
Chars per words: 5.06100217865 4.8611393121 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.62863751936 4.48103885553 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.61471316835 2.67179642975 98% => OK
Unique words: 253.0 212.727598566 119% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.551198257081 0.524837075471 105% => OK
syllable_count: 728.1 618.680645161 118% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.51630824373 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 9.59856630824 63% => OK
Article: 8.0 3.08781362007 259% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 5.0 3.51792114695 142% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.86738351254 107% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.94265232975 101% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 25.0 20.6003584229 121% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 20.1344086022 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 46.049990228 48.9658058833 94% => OK
Chars per sentence: 92.92 100.406767564 93% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.36 20.6045352989 89% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.8 5.45110844103 70% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.53405017921 110% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.5376344086 54% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 11.8709677419 93% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 3.85842293907 285% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.88709677419 61% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.302790722137 0.236089414692 128% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0807640593151 0.076458572812 106% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0430275386007 0.0737576698707 58% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.166649450495 0.150856017488 110% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0541215509731 0.0645574589148 84% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.6 11.7677419355 99% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 58.1214874552 92% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.10430107527 51% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 10.1575268817 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.07 10.9000537634 111% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.38 8.01818996416 105% => OK
difficult_words: 112.0 86.8835125448 129% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 10.002688172 145% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.0537634409 92% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 10.247311828 117% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.