Recently, the phenomenon of payment to society elites and its corresponding impacts has sparked a heated debate. Although contested by many that the fact that people such as teachers and doctors shall be paid better is highly beneficial, such issue is regarded thoroughly both constructive and positive by a substantial number of individuals. I am inclined to believe that nurses or university professors must have earnings much higher that entertainment icons like singers, and I will analyze that throughout this essay.
From social standpoint, increasing welfare for a special group in community can provide the society with some noticeable effects which are rooted in the fact that public progress, as well as cultural concerns are inextricably bound up. According to my own experience, when I was a university student, I performed an academic experiment which discovered unnecessarily high income of sports personalities comparing to the average society. Thus, beneficial ramifications of both improving wages and increasing general awareness apparently can be seen.
Within the realm of economy, investigating entertainment stars about their income might decrease the consequences of tax invasion. Moreover, fundamental aspects of supporting professional workers relate to this reality that the demerits of their contribution pertain to their own good. Hence, it is correct to presume the preconceived notion of broadening our horizons.
To conclude, while there are several compelling arguments on both sides, I profoundly believe that the benefits of increasing professional workers payment far outweigh its drawbacks. Not only do the advantages of paying attention to this group prove the significance of social values, but also pinpoint financial implications.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 140, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'workers'' or 'worker's'?
Suggestion: workers'; worker's
...the benefits of increasing professional workers payment far outweigh its drawbacks. Not...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, apparently, but, hence, if, moreover, so, thus, well, while, such as, 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: 6.0 6.10837438424 98% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 8.36945812808 84% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 5.94088669951 185% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 20.9802955665 114% => OK
Preposition: 33.0 31.9359605911 103% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 5.75862068966 156% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1511.0 1207.87684729 125% => OK
No of words: 263.0 242.827586207 108% => OK
Chars per words: 5.74524714829 5.00649968141 115% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.02706775958 3.92707691288 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.21400076577 2.71678728327 118% => OK
Unique words: 182.0 139.433497537 131% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.692015209125 0.580463131201 119% => OK
syllable_count: 474.3 379.143842365 125% => 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: 47.3403362685 50.4703680194 94% => OK
Chars per sentence: 137.363636364 104.977214359 131% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.9090909091 20.9669160288 114% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.81818181818 7.25397266985 108% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.12807881773 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.33497536946 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 6.9802955665 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 0.0 2.75862068966 0% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.12863224689 0.242375264174 53% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0382020145666 0.0925447433944 41% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0231528058504 0.071462118173 32% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0659037357251 0.151781067708 43% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0241708350698 0.0609392437508 40% => 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: 17.6 12.6369458128 139% => 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: 16.37 11.5310837438 142% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.84 8.32886699507 130% => OK
difficult_words: 101.0 55.0591133005 183% => 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?
---------------------
Rates: 77.7777777778 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 70.0 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.