It has recently been suggested that the classical, or "dead", languages Latin and Greek should be re- introduced into the school curriculum. Those that oppose the idea claim that the ancient languages are of no practical use and no help in getting a job
Recently, the phenomenon of being re-introduce the classical or dead languages Latin or Greek into school curriculum and its corresponding impacts have sparked a heated debate. Although contested by many that the matter of complex procedures is highly beneficial, such issue is regarded thoroughly both constructive and consequently positive by a substantial number of individuals. I am inclined to believe that suggesting the classical or dead languages Latin and Greek in to school curriculum can be a plus, and I will analyze that throughout this essay.
From a general standpoint, claiming the ancient languages not being helpful in getting a job can provide the society with some noticeable effects which are rooted in the fact that crucial issues, as well as ultimate outcomes, are inextricably bound up. According to my own experience, when I was a university student, I performed an academic experiment which discovered current policies. Thus, beneficial ramifications of both this common phenomenon and accordingly complicated procedures apparently can be seen.
Within the realm of a public arena, opposing the idea of using the ancient languages might increase the consequences of critical needs. As a tangible example, some scientific research undertaken by a prestigious university has asserted that the downside of creative processes is correlated negatively with vital issues. Hence, it is correct to presume the preconceived notion of this remarkable phenomenon.
To conclude, while there are several compelling arguments on both sides, I profoundly believe that the benefits of using no practical ancient languages in getting a jobfar outweigh its drawbacks. Not only do the advantages of this unique phenomenon prove the significance of total outcomes, but also pinpoint thorny issues’ potential implications.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 514, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ated procedures apparently can be seen. Within the realm of a public arena, oppo...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
accordingly, also, apparently, but, consequently, hence, if, so, thus, well, while, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 10.5418719212 114% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 6.10837438424 82% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 8.36945812808 108% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 5.94088669951 151% => OK
Pronoun: 19.0 20.9802955665 91% => OK
Preposition: 32.0 31.9359605911 100% => 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: 1568.0 1207.87684729 130% => OK
No of words: 276.0 242.827586207 114% => OK
Chars per words: 5.68115942029 5.00649968141 113% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.07593519647 3.92707691288 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.22260153921 2.71678728327 119% => OK
Unique words: 176.0 139.433497537 126% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.63768115942 0.580463131201 110% => OK
syllable_count: 499.5 379.143842365 132% => 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: 5.0 1.71428571429 292% => 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: 25.0 20.5024630542 122% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 43.0417825063 50.4703680194 85% => OK
Chars per sentence: 142.545454545 104.977214359 136% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.0909090909 20.9669160288 120% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.54545454545 7.25397266985 118% => 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 : 5.0 2.75862068966 181% => OK
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: 0.309647408928 0.242375264174 128% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0932424885495 0.0925447433944 101% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0953142237074 0.071462118173 133% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.151089668577 0.151781067708 100% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0617602061056 0.0609392437508 101% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.9 12.6369458128 142% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 29.18 53.1260098522 55% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 13.0 6.54236453202 199% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.4 10.9458128079 141% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.96 11.5310837438 138% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.83 8.32886699507 130% => OK
difficult_words: 104.0 55.0591133005 189% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 9.94827586207 146% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 10.3980295567 115% => OK
text_standard: 16.0 10.5123152709 152% => 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.