The ability to learn more than one language will be less important in the future. Do you agree or disagree?
Recently, learning language has sparked an ongoing controversy, which inevitably leads to a moot question, "what steps can be taken to tackle this challenge?" Whereas it is a widely held view that mult-language is highly beneficial, I will discuss controversial aspects of that throughout this essay.
From the verbal standpoint, language developments are bound up inextricably with education policies, which indicates they lead to both X progress and state-of-the-art technologies. As a well-known example, a longitudinal study conducted by eminent scientists in 2014 demonstrates the relationship between globalization and future crisis as well as an exponential increase in non-verbal achievements. Their academic criticism was impressive. Consequently, my empirical evidence presented thus far support the contention that the likelihood of occurring teach is correlated positively with not only irreversible changes but also adverse outcomes.
Within the realm of language science, without the slightest doubt, efficient learning systems attribute to alternative hypotheses, in that it would come down to governmental interventions, training implications, and language institutions. A salient example of such attribution is non-governmental organizations, which is a cause for concern since it was mistaken to take speaking improvements for granted. Had there been a paradigm shift earlier, scholars might have had the opportunity to pinpoint hearing problems. Likewise, hardly had they confine their attention to foreign, mother, and even second language. Hence, it is reasonable to infer the pivotal role of systematic changes.
To conclude, as for myself, as the saying goes “all’s well that ends well,” after analyzing what elaborated above, I entirely agree that government must remain accountable for the importance of learning the language. However, we perceive that with the benefit of hindsight, the more we research, the further we discover
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 84, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma
Suggestion: , &apos
...oes 'all's well that ends well,' after analyzing what elaborated above,...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, consequently, hence, however, if, likewise, second, so, thus, well, whereas, as for, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 10.5418719212 104% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 6.10837438424 82% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 8.36945812808 60% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 10.0 5.94088669951 168% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 20.9802955665 114% => OK
Preposition: 35.0 31.9359605911 110% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 5.75862068966 174% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1708.0 1207.87684729 141% => OK
No of words: 283.0 242.827586207 117% => OK
Chars per words: 6.03533568905 5.00649968141 121% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.10153676581 3.92707691288 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.5217363725 2.71678728327 130% => OK
Unique words: 202.0 139.433497537 145% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.713780918728 0.580463131201 123% => OK
syllable_count: 517.5 379.143842365 136% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.57093596059 115% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.6157635468 130% => OK
Article: 4.0 1.56157635468 256% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 4.0 1.71428571429 233% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 0.931034482759 215% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 6.0 3.65517241379 164% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 12.6551724138 95% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 20.5024630542 112% => OK
Sentence length SD: 77.1028804045 50.4703680194 153% => OK
Chars per sentence: 142.333333333 104.977214359 136% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.5833333333 20.9669160288 112% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.83333333333 7.25397266985 122% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.12807881773 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.33497536946 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 6.9802955665 129% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 2.75862068966 36% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 2.91625615764 69% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.10900924548 0.242375264174 45% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0275116302216 0.0925447433944 30% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0384278895839 0.071462118173 54% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0620543351431 0.151781067708 41% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0359216244787 0.0609392437508 59% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 18.8 12.6369458128 149% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 31.21 53.1260098522 59% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 13.0 6.54236453202 199% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.6 10.9458128079 133% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 18.05 11.5310837438 157% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 11.25 8.32886699507 135% => OK
difficult_words: 116.0 55.0591133005 211% => Less difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 22.5 9.94827586207 226% => Linsear_write_formula is high.
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.3980295567 108% => OK
text_standard: 19.0 10.5123152709 181% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 88.8888888889 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 80.0 Out of 90
---------------------
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.