It is an undeniable fact that family meals are becoming too luxurious to afford than it did in the past. This is due, in no small part, to arguably that the financial pressure, in the case of adults, is increasing and the breakneck pace of technology advancements which cause such behavioral changes, in the case of younger generations.
It is evident that the practice of people gathering around table is being lost can be attributed to adults being stifled with excessive workload to lighten financial burden, and to the young being physically and mentally attached to smart phones, computer or tech gadgets. Considering the former, living in the society where being rich and having material possessions define one’s status, parents tend to exert strenuously at the workplace to achieve such goals. As a result, spending time caring for family members becomes a far-fetched notion let lone spending time eating meals. As for children, the importance of attending home-cooked meals has been rendered obsolete by the benign neglect, in which they think family meals and those conversations at tables are less desirable than being active on social media platforms like Facebook, Instagram or Youtube.
The falling short of maintaining family meals spells disaster for each family member’s future. Family bonds can only be strengthened by spending time together and exchanging meaningful conversations, such as the father briefs the son on the ins and outs of his day at work, or the children fight over the small talk at dinner table, therefore missing these practices could weaken the family connections. The reduced frequency of family meals also means that the parent-child intimacy, which is the foremost foundation of a family, is broken. Since parents’ behaviors define children’s tendency, lacking attention and closeness can lead to bizarre behavioral patterns or mental illness in children.
In conclusion, it is the idea of chasing money and the addiction to technological devices that cause the decline of traditional family meals. It is likely to take a toll on family members relationship and bring about dire consequence to young children.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, if, so, then, therefore, as for, in conclusion, such as, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 13.1623246493 144% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 7.85571142285 51% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 10.4138276553 134% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 7.30460921844 123% => OK
Pronoun: 15.0 24.0651302605 62% => OK
Preposition: 49.0 41.998997996 117% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 8.3376753507 60% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1841.0 1615.20841683 114% => OK
No of words: 343.0 315.596192385 109% => OK
Chars per words: 5.36734693878 5.12529762239 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.30351707066 4.20363070211 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.93636522473 2.80592935109 105% => OK
Unique words: 210.0 176.041082164 119% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.612244897959 0.561755894193 109% => OK
syllable_count: 562.5 506.74238477 111% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.60771543086 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 5.43587174349 92% => OK
Article: 3.0 2.52805611222 119% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.10420841683 143% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 0.809619238477 247% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 8.0 4.76152304609 168% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 16.0721442886 75% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 28.0 20.2975951904 138% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 71.9500212339 49.4020404114 146% => OK
Chars per sentence: 153.416666667 106.682146367 144% => OK
Words per sentence: 28.5833333333 20.7667163134 138% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.58333333333 7.06120827912 93% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 8.67935871743 35% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 3.9879759519 176% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 3.4128256513 59% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.129217965209 0.244688304435 53% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0513275399681 0.084324248473 61% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0360902990888 0.0667982634062 54% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0759457928051 0.151304729494 50% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.021528591486 0.056905535591 38% => 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: 18.2 13.0946893788 139% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 43.06 50.2224549098 86% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 11.3001002004 126% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.46 12.4159519038 116% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.23 8.58950901804 119% => OK
difficult_words: 113.0 78.4519038076 144% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 19.0 9.78957915832 194% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.2 10.1190380762 130% => OK
text_standard: 19.0 10.7795591182 176% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 89.8876404494 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 8.0 Out of 9
---------------------
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.