The changing of the social ideology and public opinion is incessantly under the effect of ways of production and the structure of the population. Some discussions widely believe that relations between strangers in modern society are significantly differentiated, and enlarging gaps makes us less enthusiastic about helping people we do not know. However, I am hard to agree that people in modern society have become not as interested in helping strangers as the people in the past. I feel this way for two reasons, which I will explore in this essay.
To begin with, I believe that people in modern society have developed some more effective ways of helping people facing difficulties. Most developed societies with complete welfare systems have established their charity organisations and relief facilities to gather surplus resources from the public and redistribute them to the people living in shortness of materials. My personal experiences is a compelling illustration of this. As a volunteer, I joined a food bank program and paid for my spare time to collect extra vegetables or pre-made instant food from local families and transport them to a food bank located in a less enriched community. The food is not directly donated to the beggars or homeless people who are primarily under help, but they can get into the food bank and take whatever they want as free as anyone else. The people who enjoy the benefits from the food bank all agree that gathering all surplus into redistribution is a much more efficient way than direct donations.
Furthermore, more abundant materials and surpluses produced by the industrialised society have grown our generosity to donate what we have. The industrialised producing structure has explosively enriched our material life, and people who live in most developed regions are less struggle in surviving. Therefore, for the people who are still unable to sustain ordinary life, it became possible to obtain from the groups willing to pay their extra resources. Take an instance in my community. The food safety regulation in my city requires all restaurants to abandon the surplus foods that are not sold out periodically, and it is going to be a considerable waste because a tremendous amount of food is still safe to eat even if they already passed the expiration date. However, almost all the restaurants in my community set up a “free pick-up day” when the foods are nearly expired. Although the free pick-up is inclusive to all residents, we still leave chances to those who are struggling to pay their bills.
In conclusion, I think that people who live nowadays are more motivated to offer strangers help. This is because a developed society usually developed a full-fledged welfare system of redistribution and abundant surplus in materials grown people’s generosity to aid people who are not as privileged as we do.
- University recognized first year students have poor study skills in its university Some in the university believe the best way to address this is to ask all first year students have to pass course on study skills Others don t agree with this requirement W 73
- tpo 66 Summarize the points made in the lecture being sure to explain how they cast doubt on the specific methods proposed in the reading passage 100
- TPO 54 Integrated Writing Task 70
- TPO 63 73
- TPO 64 Do you agree or disagree with the following statement It is more important to read or watch news presented by people whose views are different from your own than it is to read or watch news presented by those whose views are similar to your own Use 90
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, furthermore, however, if, so, still, therefore, thus, i feel, i think, in conclusion, in short, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 15.1003584229 119% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 9.8082437276 20% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 13.8261648746 108% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 11.0286738351 136% => OK
Pronoun: 39.0 43.0788530466 91% => OK
Preposition: 61.0 52.1666666667 117% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 8.0752688172 99% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2415.0 1977.66487455 122% => OK
No of words: 470.0 407.700716846 115% => OK
Chars per words: 5.13829787234 4.8611393121 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.65612321451 4.48103885553 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.95246864046 2.67179642975 111% => OK
Unique words: 240.0 212.727598566 113% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.510638297872 0.524837075471 97% => OK
syllable_count: 780.3 618.680645161 126% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.51630824373 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 9.59856630824 94% => OK
Article: 5.0 3.08781362007 162% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.51792114695 57% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.86738351254 214% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 2.0 4.94265232975 40% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 20.6003584229 92% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 20.1344086022 119% => OK
Sentence length SD: 60.1275652236 48.9658058833 123% => OK
Chars per sentence: 127.105263158 100.406767564 127% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.7368421053 20.6045352989 120% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.0 5.45110844103 110% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.5376344086 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 11.8709677419 93% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 3.85842293907 52% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.88709677419 123% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.277659920012 0.236089414692 118% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0878708591308 0.076458572812 115% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.06977360407 0.0737576698707 95% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.181986604605 0.150856017488 121% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0481342795656 0.0645574589148 75% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.1 11.7677419355 128% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 38.66 58.1214874552 67% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 6.10430107527 183% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 10.1575268817 136% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.83 10.9000537634 118% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.69 8.01818996416 108% => OK
difficult_words: 115.0 86.8835125448 132% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 10.002688172 115% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 10.0537634409 115% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 10.247311828 117% => 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: 73.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.0 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.