Taking a lot of time to make an important decision is often considered as a bad quality for a person. However, some people think that is a good quality for a person
Critical decisions result in profound consequences. Therefore, how to make decisions is what everyone should concern with. Some people make decisions effectively, whereas others are used to take a long time doing it. There has been a debate on whether making a decision slowly is a good quality of a person or not. Such controversy seems to have no correct answer. Personally, I consider that to be a very good quality.
To begin with, vital decisions are usually complicated, and they require detailed planning. It is the comprehensive consideration that brings about the better decision. After all, a longer period of time gives us a wider space to concern more of the aspects.
In addition to that, fast yet erroneous decision making took more time in the near future. Namely, if you decide on an important issue very quickly, you might need to spend more time dealing with the negative impact it brings. Take my aunt, for example. She chose to study economics just to earn more money, though she was not enthusiastic towards it at all. Realizing the related field was far from her imagination and interests, she took the big exam again to enter the department of history. She once told me that although it took her three years more than others to enter the department of history, she was anything but regretful. The first decision she made had wasted her three years, but she could have wasted more if she didn't wake up from the illusion. If she has thought a little more, a little longer, she might have opt for the department of history from the very beginning.
Based on the reasons below, to make a decision slowly might lower the possibility of inconsideration, and it could also prevent ourselves from wasting more time. Taking a long time making decisions is somehow a good quality to me, and it is instrumental to the right decisions.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-12-12 | BearTien | 68 | view |
| 2019-10-06 | Hellen Yuan | 73 | view |
| 2017-12-03 | Jason bang | 44 | view |
| 2016-09-29 | shshadi | 85 | view |
| 2016-09-27 | shshadi | 85 | view |
- Taking a lot of time to make an important decision is often considered as a bad quality for a person. However, some people think that is a good quality for a person 68
- Some people prefer to eat meals at restaurants, while others prefer to prepare and eat food in their own home. Which do you prefer? Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer. 70
- High school students should be required to study many different subjects at same time or they should study only three to four subjects at a time? 76
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? People communicate with each other less than in the past because of the popularity of television. Use specific reasons and examples to support your opinion. 76
- The people we work with have many different characteristics and all of them affect the quality of our time at work Of the following what do you think is the most important quality for a boss or supervisor to have 1 a serious attitude about their work 2 a 85
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 190, Rule ID: PERIOD_OF_TIME[1]
Message: Use simply 'period'.
Suggestion: period
...he better decision. After all, a longer period of time gives us a wider space to concern more ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 730, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: didn't
..., but she could have wasted more if she didnt wake up from the illusion. If she has t...
^^^^^
Line 9, column 829, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Use past participle here: 'opted'.
Suggestion: opted
...e more, a little longer, she might have opt for the department of history from the ...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, if, so, therefore, thus, whereas, after all, for example, in addition, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 15.1003584229 79% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 9.8082437276 71% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 13.8261648746 58% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 4.0 11.0286738351 36% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 33.0 43.0788530466 77% => OK
Preposition: 40.0 52.1666666667 77% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 8.0752688172 87% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1546.0 1977.66487455 78% => OK
No of words: 319.0 407.700716846 78% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.84639498433 4.8611393121 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.22617688928 4.48103885553 94% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.68435587297 2.67179642975 100% => OK
Unique words: 187.0 212.727598566 88% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.586206896552 0.524837075471 112% => OK
syllable_count: 491.4 618.680645161 79% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.51630824373 99% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 9.59856630824 83% => OK
Article: 3.0 3.08781362007 97% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 3.51792114695 114% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.86738351254 214% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 4.94265232975 81% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 20.6003584229 92% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 20.1344086022 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 35.033027551 48.9658058833 72% => OK
Chars per sentence: 81.3684210526 100.406767564 81% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.7894736842 20.6045352989 81% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.36842105263 5.45110844103 98% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.5376344086 54% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 11.8709677419 59% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 3.85842293907 207% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.88709677419 82% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.230856632182 0.236089414692 98% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0757982687422 0.076458572812 99% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0825107726619 0.0737576698707 112% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.150530610103 0.150856017488 100% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0994834905262 0.0645574589148 154% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 9.8 11.7677419355 83% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 63.7 58.1214874552 110% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.10430107527 51% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.4 10.1575268817 83% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.55 10.9000537634 97% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.94 8.01818996416 99% => OK
difficult_words: 71.0 86.8835125448 82% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 5.0 10.002688172 50% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 8.4 10.0537634409 84% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 10.247311828 78% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Better to have 5 paragraphs with 3 arguments. And try always support/against one side but compare two sides, like this:
para 1: introduction
para 2: reason 1. address both of the views presented for reason 1
para 3: reason 2. address both of the views presented for reason 2
para 4: reason 3. address both of the views presented for reason 3
para 5: conclusion.
So how to find out those reasons. There is a formula:
reasons == advantages or
reasons == disadvantages
for example, we can always apply 'save time', 'save/make money', 'find a job', 'make friends', 'get more information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.
or we can apply 'waste time', 'waste money', 'no job', 'make bad friends', 'get bad information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.
Rates: 68.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 20.5 Out of 30
---------------------
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.