It is not an unfamilar scene that a child is screming at supermarkets or forcing their parents to but toys for them by threatening to cry at toy stores. Hard as it is, anxious parents are trying to find a best way to reshape the characters of their kids. Some people argue that the best way to help children behave better is to spend more time taking with them. Others, suggest that giving children more attention and supervise them while they are playing with their friends works best. Nevertheless, from my perspective, the most efficient way to deal with this problem is to limit the types of TV programs and movies.
On the one hand, setting limitations on types of TV programs that children can have access to will inderectly but effectively contribute to the change of behavior pattern of kids. Videos, with sounds and images, are vivid materials for children to mimic. Meanwhile, most programs and movies are designed to be attractive, which will increase kids' interest to watch. During the process of whatching, kids will be influenced with or without wearness. As a result, the quality of these materials are essential as they determine what kids learn. For instance, some programs have nagetive impact on kids, such as porn moives, volience, drugs, and other crimial acts. However, cartoons that are designed to insprite kids and teaching them proper manner will lead kids to be more friendly and reasonable. By carefully select whatcing material, parents can achieve education goals for their kids without too much effort.
On the onther hand, chanses are high that spending more time to have conversations with children is merely a wast of time. Unlike grown-ups, small children do not share the same patient and thus a long and detactive takling will do nothing but to make kids bored and wish to get away with them. Apart form that, kids see they word differently as adults do. For example, when a mother tell her little girl that she should be a better kid and should not cry for toys. Nonetheless, the message will get the girl confused as she may not have a clue about what is "being nice". All she want to do is to get that toy and the only way she could success is cry loud. Taking makes no scene if one party could not understand the other.
Besides, monitoring kids while they are playing with their peers will possibly make chidlren more aggresive and behavor the opposite of what partents are hoping as a method to express unsatisfication. Children have their own rules among their peers which parents may not understand, such as a silly promise and the way they choose their best friends. Interference will make kids feel disrespected and get hurt. Furthermore, they may be isoluted by other kids if parents insist to supervise.
In summary, the best way to eduaction kids and let them get ride of bad behaviors is to wisly choose videos for them to watch becasue they could give children most vivid impression of certain behaviors. In the meantime, taking to children is less effcient as children may not understand worlds from aludts and supervising kids while they are with their peers could make damages to children's confidence and deginity, oring them to act badlly.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 204, Rule ID: THE_SUPERLATIVE[1]
Message: Use 'the' with the superlative.
Suggestion: the
... is, anxious parents are trying to find a best way to reshape the characters of t...
^
Line 5, column 296, Rule ID: APART_FORM[1]
Message: Possible typo. Did you mean 'apart from'?
Suggestion: Apart from
...s bored and wish to get away with them. Apart form that, kids see they word differently as...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 592, Rule ID: HE_VERB_AGR[1]
Message: The pronoun 'she' must be used with a third-person verb: 'wants'.
Suggestion: wants
...what is 'being nice'. All she want to do is to get that toy and the only w...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
besides, but, furthermore, however, if, may, nevertheless, nonetheless, so, thus, while, for example, for instance, in summary, such as, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 27.0 15.1003584229 179% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 20.0 9.8082437276 204% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 23.0 13.8261648746 166% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 11.0286738351 109% => OK
Pronoun: 44.0 43.0788530466 102% => OK
Preposition: 67.0 52.1666666667 128% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 8.0752688172 87% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2670.0 1977.66487455 135% => OK
No of words: 550.0 407.700716846 135% => OK
Chars per words: 4.85454545455 4.8611393121 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.84273464058 4.48103885553 108% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.55931034099 2.67179642975 96% => OK
Unique words: 275.0 212.727598566 129% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.5 0.524837075471 95% => OK
syllable_count: 794.7 618.680645161 128% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.51630824373 92% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 9.59856630824 21% => OK
Article: 4.0 3.08781362007 130% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.51792114695 57% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.86738351254 54% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 4.94265232975 162% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 26.0 20.6003584229 126% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 20.1344086022 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 45.3555969811 48.9658058833 93% => OK
Chars per sentence: 102.692307692 100.406767564 102% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.1538461538 20.6045352989 103% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.69230769231 5.45110844103 104% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.53405017921 110% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.5376344086 54% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 16.0 11.8709677419 135% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 3.85842293907 104% => 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: 0.105786819712 0.236089414692 45% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.035701346941 0.076458572812 47% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0435443426608 0.0737576698707 59% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0623783716599 0.150856017488 41% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.032057590317 0.0645574589148 50% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.0 11.7677419355 102% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 67.08 58.1214874552 115% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.10430107527 51% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 10.1575268817 90% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.85 10.9000537634 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.32 8.01818996416 104% => OK
difficult_words: 127.0 86.8835125448 146% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.002688172 105% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.0537634409 103% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 10.247311828 107% => 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.