Recently, the phenomenon of a group's ideology 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 substantial number of individuals. I am inclined that the destructive problem can be a plus, and I analyze all over this essay.
From a social standpoint, reasons killing people can provide 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 reasonable items and idea supported apparently can be seen.
Within the realm of a public arena, common man's idea might increase the consequences of critical needs. Moreover, fundamental aspects of dangerous lifestyle relate to this reality that the demerits of distinctive basis pertain to unforeseen events. 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 international aim.
To conclude, while there are several compelling arguments on both sides, I profoundly believe that the benefits of insufferable ideas far outweigh its drawbacks. Not only do the advantages of this unique phenomenon prove the significance total outcomes.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 31, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'groups'' or 'group's'?
Suggestion: groups'; group's
Recently, the phenomenon of a groups ideology and its corresponding impacts ...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
apparently, consequently, 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: 4.0 6.10837438424 65% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 8.36945812808 48% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 9.0 5.94088669951 151% => OK
Pronoun: 18.0 20.9802955665 86% => OK
Preposition: 28.0 31.9359605911 88% => 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: 1372.0 1207.87684729 114% => OK
No of words: 241.0 242.827586207 99% => OK
Chars per words: 5.69294605809 5.00649968141 114% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.94007293032 3.92707691288 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.20276046978 2.71678728327 118% => OK
Unique words: 172.0 139.433497537 123% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.713692946058 0.580463131201 123% => OK
syllable_count: 448.2 379.143842365 118% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.9 1.57093596059 121% => 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: 1.0 0.931034482759 107% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 3.65517241379 109% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 12.6551724138 95% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 20.5024630542 98% => OK
Sentence length SD: 43.3592070192 50.4703680194 86% => OK
Chars per sentence: 114.333333333 104.977214359 109% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.0833333333 20.9669160288 96% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.66666666667 7.25397266985 92% => 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 : 3.0 2.75862068966 109% => 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: 0.0820957451483 0.242375264174 34% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0245398455 0.0925447433944 27% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0333252932796 0.071462118173 47% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0401099343247 0.151781067708 26% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0330574999225 0.0609392437508 54% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.4 12.6369458128 122% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 25.8 53.1260098522 49% => 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: 15.72 11.5310837438 136% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 11.57 8.32886699507 139% => OK
difficult_words: 106.0 55.0591133005 193% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 9.94827586207 121% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.3980295567 96% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 10.5123152709 114% => 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.