Recently, the phenomenon of substituting theoretical knowledge with practical training in universities and its corresponding impacts has sparked a heated debate. Although contested by many that applying practical courses could be a plus, this issue has been regarded thoroughly both constructive and positive by a substantial number of individuals. I am inclined to believe that eliminating theory-based subjects could be a plus, and I will explain that throughout this essay.
From a social standpoint, increasing practical experience among university students can benefit the society with some remarkable impacts, which are rooted in the fact that enriching university curriculum as well as considering social demand are inextricably bound up. According to my own experience, when I was a university student, I performed an experiment which discovered a lack of practical experience. Thus, beneficial ramifications of technological issues and experimental research apparently can be seen.
Within the realm of science, lowering the time for theoretical courses might increase the consequences of further deficiencies. Moreover, fundamental aspects of routine jobs relate to this reality that the demerits of specialized majors pertain to job seekers. As a tangible example, some scientific research undertaken by a prestigious university has asserted that the downside of an incompetent community is correlated negatively with laboratory science. Hence, it is correct to presume the preconceived notion of internships.
To conclude, while there are several compelling arguments on both sides, I profoundly believe that the benefits of increasing practical training courses instead of theoretical knowledge far outweigh its drawbacks.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 430, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...g theory-based subjects could be a plus, and I will explain that throughout this ...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
apparently, hence, if, moreover, so, thus, well, while, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.5418719212 95% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 6.10837438424 98% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 8.36945812808 48% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 10.0 5.94088669951 168% => OK
Pronoun: 19.0 20.9802955665 91% => OK
Preposition: 33.0 31.9359605911 103% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.75862068966 104% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1490.0 1207.87684729 123% => OK
No of words: 249.0 242.827586207 103% => OK
Chars per words: 5.98393574297 5.00649968141 120% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.97237131171 3.92707691288 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.39122325348 2.71678728327 125% => OK
Unique words: 162.0 139.433497537 116% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.650602409639 0.580463131201 112% => OK
syllable_count: 471.6 379.143842365 124% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.9 1.57093596059 121% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.6157635468 108% => OK
Article: 1.0 1.56157635468 64% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 1.71428571429 233% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 0.931034482759 107% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 3.65517241379 109% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 11.0 12.6551724138 87% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 20.5024630542 107% => OK
Sentence length SD: 52.5967035387 50.4703680194 104% => OK
Chars per sentence: 135.454545455 104.977214359 129% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.6363636364 20.9669160288 108% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.0 7.25397266985 83% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.12807881773 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.33497536946 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 6.9802955665 72% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 2.75862068966 72% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 2.91625615764 137% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.179455990611 0.242375264174 74% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0591805067759 0.0925447433944 64% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0498892548074 0.071462118173 70% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.100492628298 0.151781067708 66% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0286067270059 0.0609392437508 47% => 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: 18.1 12.6369458128 143% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 23.77 53.1260098522 45% => 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: 17.7 11.5310837438 153% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 11.01 8.32886699507 132% => OK
difficult_words: 99.0 55.0591133005 180% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 16.0 9.94827586207 161% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.3980295567 104% => OK
text_standard: 18.0 10.5123152709 171% => 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.