In contemporary society, where rarely can a person live without interacting with others, it comes as no surprise that cementing the relationship have always been amongst the individuals’ top priorities. A simple recognition of the argument leads our discussion to a controversial issue of how close we should keep to our acquaintances. Some adhere to the belief that keeping distance with us is beneficial to remind us of the pivital roles of others. An alternative strategy competing with it is to always stay with others, which is more than likely to provide us with bountiful opportunities to associate with them. I am inclined to concur with the second idea, and in the ensuing paragraph the rationale will behind the statement will be further elaborated.
The foremost factor tipping the competitive advantage away from the former to the latter is the effectiveness. Nothing can alter the fact that misunderstanding is the constant companion of the interpersonal relationship. Provided that a companion shuns you without any warning, you may be confused at first and then wander whether you have offended him/her. Having racked your brain about the conundrum, you have no option but ascribe the weird behavior to the pure antipathy, which presumably jeopardizes the rapport despite his/her good intention. In the contrast, the permanent connection defintely lays a stepping stone leading toward mutual trust, thus eliminating such unneccessary misapprehensions and frictions.
Another significant reason that deserves attention is that tackling the problems through the other’s aid when we are involved in difficulties, predicaments or delimmas is beneficial to the relationship. As a matter of fact, a crippling disadvantage suffered from by the first standpoint is the deficiency of the company and communication, the essential ingredient of assistance. My own experience is a compelling example of this point. There was a time when I stuck in the trouble of preparing for the tofel speaking. Due to my weak foundation, I cannot speak intelligibly, flunently, coherently, even though the practice have drained my energy completely. Fatigued, pathetic and desperate, I felt the apprehension going through my head and I was on the verge of tears. It was the my lowest ebb that my partner Tom who often accompanied me noticed my panic. He channeled my emotion, gave me a pat on the back and then patiently taught me to shrink the insuperable hurdle down to a manageable thing by virtue of setting a series of small goal. Frankly speaking, without the morale drawn from his consolation, I would not have accomplished the monotonous and tiring practices, which yielded a satisfactory grade in the exam. Needless to say, thus was the rock-solid friendship forged between us.
With all the above factors taken into consideration, we can logically reach the conclusion that we should put a premium on the active association instead of the alienation when handling fellowship.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 783, Rule ID: DT_PRP[1]
Message: Possible typo. Did you mean 'the' or 'my'?
Suggestion: the; my
...and I was on the verge of tears. It was the my lowest ebb that my partner Tom who ofte...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, frankly, if, may, second, so, then, thus, as a matter of fact
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 15.1003584229 113% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 9.8082437276 102% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 13.8261648746 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 11.0286738351 145% => OK
Pronoun: 51.0 43.0788530466 118% => OK
Preposition: 65.0 52.1666666667 125% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 8.0752688172 198% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2523.0 1977.66487455 128% => OK
No of words: 473.0 407.700716846 116% => OK
Chars per words: 5.33403805497 4.8611393121 110% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.66353547975 4.48103885553 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.26107178212 2.67179642975 122% => OK
Unique words: 295.0 212.727598566 139% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.623678646934 0.524837075471 119% => OK
syllable_count: 784.8 618.680645161 127% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.51630824373 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 11.0 9.59856630824 115% => OK
Article: 6.0 3.08781362007 194% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 3.51792114695 85% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.86738351254 54% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.94265232975 81% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 20.6003584229 102% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 20.1344086022 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 45.0449510939 48.9658058833 92% => OK
Chars per sentence: 120.142857143 100.406767564 120% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.5238095238 20.6045352989 109% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.47619047619 5.45110844103 64% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.5376344086 18% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 11.8709677419 84% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 3.85842293907 259% => 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: 0.228511823415 0.236089414692 97% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0522462311965 0.076458572812 68% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0517878930929 0.0737576698707 70% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.124802179264 0.150856017488 83% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0524521540958 0.0645574589148 81% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.9 11.7677419355 127% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 40.69 58.1214874552 70% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 6.10430107527 183% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.1 10.1575268817 129% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.93 10.9000537634 128% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.9 8.01818996416 123% => OK
difficult_words: 155.0 86.8835125448 178% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.0 10.002688172 150% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.0537634409 107% => 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: 85.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 25.5 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.