Some people believe that being far away from those we care about is necessary for us to understand the importance of our relationship. Others believe that spending time with those we care about as much as possible can help develop our relationship. Which do you agree with and why?
Whether being far away from those we care about is necessary for people to realize the importance of friendship arouses a heated debate. Some people agree with the statement, while others argue that spending more time with those we care about as much as possible is a better method to strengthen relationships. As far as I am concerned, I maintain that the second approach is better. My reasons are as follows.
To begin with, frequently interacting with people is an ideal way to develop relationships, and spending more time with them can increase the chances to interact with them. For instance, I tried to maintain a good relationship with my college roommates by asking them out for dinner, singing karaoke together, etc. Since I had plenty of interaction with my roommates, we often discuss random topics including diabolically difficult calculus problems and how terrible some professors' teaching styles were. Through gossiping, I sustained a good friendship with my friends, and we were still friends even after we graduated for one year. On the other hand, I left my hometown, Hualien City, to study in Taipei City, but I only texted my best friend, Jammy, once per month. In other words, I did not have considerable opportunities to exchange our college life, discuss new video games, etc. Consequently, our friendship did not last for three months after I moved out due to the lack of interaction between us. So apparently, lacking communication with people cannot help us develop relationships.
In addition, in order to develop a steady friendship, understanding each other is inevitable. Nevertheless, staying far away from people who you love cannot facilitate people in understanding each other. Take my cousin, Todd, as an example. Todd met his Japanese girlfriends on Tinder, but he currently works in the U.S. Therefore, he could only communicate with his girlfriends via Skype or Jitsi. Unfortunately, since they did not meet each other in real life, my cousin, who happened to dislike cigarettes a lot, did not realize that his girlfriend smoked two packs of cigarettes every day. Therefore, once they meet physically my cousin was exceptionally disappointed by her bad habit. Eventually, my cousin's relationship with his girlfriend did not last for a month after realizing her smoking habit. Contrarily, my sister met her boyfriend at a college computer programming course, and they often discuss programming languages, mathematics, and algorithms together. Since my sister met her boyfriend in person, she knew that her boyfriend did not have any bad habits that she could not endure. As a result, she maintained a steady relationship with her boyfriend till now.
In conclusion, I believe that spending more time with people we care about as much as possible is a more favorable way, considering the aforementioned reasons and examples. After all, the best ways of ensuring a longer relationship are frequently communicating with people and understanding each other.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
apparently, but, consequently, if, nevertheless, second, so, still, then, therefore, while, after all, for instance, in addition, in conclusion, as a result, in other words, to begin with, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 15.1003584229 79% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 9.8082437276 51% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 13.8261648746 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 11.0286738351 73% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 62.0 43.0788530466 144% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 65.0 52.1666666667 125% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 8.0752688172 87% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2518.0 1977.66487455 127% => OK
No of words: 482.0 407.700716846 118% => OK
Chars per words: 5.22406639004 4.8611393121 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.68556276237 4.48103885553 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.07542786824 2.67179642975 115% => OK
Unique words: 256.0 212.727598566 120% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.53112033195 0.524837075471 101% => OK
syllable_count: 776.7 618.680645161 126% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.51630824373 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 15.0 9.59856630824 156% => OK
Article: 1.0 3.08781362007 32% => OK
Subordination: 8.0 3.51792114695 227% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 6.0 1.86738351254 321% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 13.0 4.94265232975 263% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 20.6003584229 117% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 20.1344086022 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 43.4376948437 48.9658058833 89% => OK
Chars per sentence: 104.916666667 100.406767564 104% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.0833333333 20.6045352989 97% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.58333333333 5.45110844103 157% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.5376344086 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 11.8709677419 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 3.85842293907 130% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.88709677419 123% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.342221660298 0.236089414692 145% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0926171109142 0.076458572812 121% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.103026569555 0.0737576698707 140% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.251072986994 0.150856017488 166% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.129058392659 0.0645574589148 200% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.2 11.7677419355 112% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 58.1214874552 88% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.10430107527 144% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 10.1575268817 109% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.0 10.9000537634 119% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.46 8.01818996416 106% => OK
difficult_words: 117.0 86.8835125448 135% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.002688172 110% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.0537634409 99% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 10.247311828 127% => 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: 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.