Nowadays, it is commonly accepted that doing task precisely and acquired is really preferred to working very fast but with low quality. Contrary, to this popular beliefs there are still those who argue that today because of our modern world moved very quickly so if we cannot adapt with this rate surely lost our position and we cannot become successful. Thus, it does not matter if we have some small mistake and instead of increasing our output. I, to a great extent, disagree with this idea that quantity is more important than quality.
First and foremost, always high quantity cannot guarantee our success. For example, in some last years, we see the appearance of some new self-phone company, at the first, the production of this company was very popular in my country because this self-phones has the high config and very low cost. In addition, this company exhibits two or three new model in each year, while another famous company same iPhone usually just exhibit one model in each year. But, now we see that the people have not any interest in buying this product because this phones after very short time find several soft word problems. Therefore, the high rate of this company has not provided any gain for it's in the lack of quality.
On another significant fact, that should be taken into the consideration is that sometimes low precise can lead to hugging disaster. For example, several years ago, our government decided to build a dam in a dry region to prepare water for irrigation of agriculture grounds. But, unfortunately, the architecture company, to getting the foundation fastly did not do very complete and exact research about the geological condition of the region. Thus they established a dam on a very salty ground and the result was horrible. All of the waters that arrived at this dam became salty and unusable. Unfortunately, until now all of the attempt to solving this problem faced by the break.
On the basis of reasons that mentioned above, I am convinced that acquire work cannot replace with high rate work but common with neglect. Because of some terrible output that may be cannot be rebound and certainly, just good quality can guarantee the success of each market.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 350, Rule ID: CD_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun 'model' seems to be countable, so consider using: 'models'.
Suggestion: models
... this company exhibits two or three new model in each year, while another famous comp...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 444, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
...the geological condition of the region. Thus they established a dam on a very salty ...
^^^^
Line 3, column 524, Rule ID: ALL_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'all the'.
Suggestion: All the
...lty ground and the result was horrible. All of the waters that arrived at this dam became ...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 619, Rule ID: ALL_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'all the'.
Suggestion: all the
... and unusable. Unfortunately, until now all of the attempt to solving this problem faced b...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, if, may, really, so, still, therefore, thus, while, for example, in addition, to a great extent
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 15.1003584229 66% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 9.8082437276 92% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 13.8261648746 87% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 11.0286738351 100% => OK
Pronoun: 38.0 43.0788530466 88% => OK
Preposition: 45.0 52.1666666667 86% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 8.0752688172 111% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1835.0 1977.66487455 93% => OK
No of words: 376.0 407.700716846 92% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.88031914894 4.8611393121 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.40348946061 4.48103885553 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.49897981674 2.67179642975 94% => OK
Unique words: 219.0 212.727598566 103% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.582446808511 0.524837075471 111% => OK
syllable_count: 584.1 618.680645161 94% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.51630824373 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 9.59856630824 73% => OK
Article: 3.0 3.08781362007 97% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 3.51792114695 85% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.86738351254 0% => OK
Preposition: 10.0 4.94265232975 202% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 20.6003584229 83% => 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: 22.0 20.1344086022 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 45.7329392244 48.9658058833 93% => OK
Chars per sentence: 107.941176471 100.406767564 108% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.1176470588 20.6045352989 107% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.29411764706 5.45110844103 115% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.5376344086 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 11.8709677419 25% => More positive sentences wanted.
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: 0.0695119895163 0.236089414692 29% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0228270497633 0.076458572812 30% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.038735369896 0.0737576698707 53% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0516424388603 0.150856017488 34% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0560475898982 0.0645574589148 87% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.6 11.7677419355 107% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 58.1214874552 85% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.10430107527 51% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 10.1575268817 117% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.02 10.9000537634 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.51 8.01818996416 106% => OK
difficult_words: 90.0 86.8835125448 104% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 10.002688172 90% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.0537634409 107% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 10.247311828 107% => 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.