Recently, the phenomenon of culture shock among immigrants and its corresponding impacts has sparked a heated debait. Although contested by many that finding options to eradict this challenge is highly beneficial, such issue is regarded thoroughly both constructive and positive by a substantial number of individuals. I an inclined to believe that eradicting clutural shock by optional solutions is a plus, and I will analyze that throughout this essay.
From the social standpoint, reducing concerns of cultural shock in migrant communities can provide the society with some noticeable effects which are rooted in the fact that traditions, as well as cultural integrity, are inextricably boun up. According to my own experiennce, when I was a university student, I performed an academic survey which discovered dramatic cultural gaps between migrant families. Hence, nefeficial ramifications of both preserving traditions and mutual understanding between family members apparently can be seen.
Within the realm of personal issues, culture shock might increase the consequences of spritual problems. Moreover, fundamental aspects of generation gap relate to this reality that demerits of worrying about this shock pertain to difference in beliefs and viewpoints. Hence, it is correct to presume the precinceived notion of eliminate this issue by probable replacements.
To conclude, while there are several compelling arguments on both sides, I profoundly believe that the benefits of finding solutions to eradict major concerns between immigrants due to cultural shoch far outweigh its drawbacks. Not only do the advantages of presenting possible options prove the significance of mutual understanding, but also pinpoint social implications.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 322, Rule ID: I_A[1]
Message: Did you mean 'am' (first person of "to be")?
Suggestion: am
... a substantial number of individuals. I an inclined to believe that eradicting clu...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, apparently, but, hence, if, moreover, so, well, while, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 10.5418719212 85% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 6.10837438424 65% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 8.36945812808 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 5.94088669951 151% => OK
Pronoun: 20.0 20.9802955665 95% => OK
Preposition: 39.0 31.9359605911 122% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 5.75862068966 52% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1498.0 1207.87684729 124% => OK
No of words: 256.0 242.827586207 105% => OK
Chars per words: 5.8515625 5.00649968141 117% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.0 3.92707691288 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.18825626751 2.71678728327 117% => OK
Unique words: 169.0 139.433497537 121% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.66015625 0.580463131201 114% => OK
syllable_count: 464.4 379.143842365 122% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.57093596059 115% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.6157635468 87% => OK
Article: 1.0 1.56157635468 64% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 1.71428571429 233% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 0.931034482759 215% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 3.65517241379 109% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 11.0 12.6551724138 87% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 20.5024630542 112% => OK
Sentence length SD: 45.0903592342 50.4703680194 89% => OK
Chars per sentence: 136.181818182 104.977214359 130% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.2727272727 20.9669160288 111% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.45454545455 7.25397266985 89% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.12807881773 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.33497536946 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 6.9802955665 57% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 2.75862068966 145% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 2.91625615764 103% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0211597640353 0.242375264174 9% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.00761328029295 0.0925447433944 8% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0163966105404 0.071462118173 23% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0108114219805 0.151781067708 7% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0187259321723 0.0609392437508 31% => 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: 17.8 12.6369458128 141% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 31.21 53.1260098522 59% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 11.2 6.54236453202 171% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.6 10.9458128079 133% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.95 11.5310837438 147% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 11.07 8.32886699507 133% => OK
difficult_words: 102.0 55.0591133005 185% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 9.94827586207 146% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.3980295567 108% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 10.5123152709 143% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 11.1111111111 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 10.0 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.