Some people suggest that there should be restrictions on a detailed description of crimes in the newspapers and on television. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Nowadays, people normally have consensus on the truth that exposing detail of crimes must be restricted for ordinary people. Although people must be aware of their circumstance, it is not mandatory that they must know about all detail of each crime. That is due to curbing from imitating of these delicts by other people and decreasing the amount of negative effect on people.
All of us know, when you show and describe something in the explanation form, sometimes this becomes a learning class for other delinquents. To put it differently, some people can identify the ways and the solutions that these were the cause of failure of guilt; therefore, they find a new way of doing that better than the failed situation. For example, when I was a soldier, a murder occurred in our protection zone that a boy killed his father. He provided the scene somehow we thought that his father had a suicide, while his boy was killer. With more investigations, we understood that his boy with considering a plan that he saw in a newspaper, committed this crime. Consequently, some people may be using the detail of guilt for doing delicts without deficient.
Sometimes, children are not able to solve some concepts in their mind. When they have read about the detail of crimes, their mind has been not could solve this situation and it is the cause of disturbance in their life. in other words, for children in low ages, facing tremendous crimes is not easy. The research of academic institute in Tehran show, the mind of children don’t have a capacity for confronting with some crimes; hence, these situations will affect their life in near future. For instance, one of our family children, when he was 10 years old, he saw a crime in their street. for this scene, he has been not talking since that event happened. That is due to shocking from this event.
As outlined above, existing detail and whole of guilt story in media is not a rational decision; thus, we must limit them to specific detail just for awareness. That is because of making a dam for learning these crimes and eliminating the negative effect of them on people and children.
- Use specific examples and evidences to support your answer.1- trust people for future life, 2- strat to other crimes, 3-1- make better life, 2- responsibility, 3-1- make a good connection, 2- people help him, 3- pleasure sense 66
- At some universities, students take part in making decisions about the issues that affect daily life of everyone on campus such as how many hours the libraries should be open each day or what kinds of food should be served in the cafeteria. But at some un 73
- Some people like to buy and eat their meals at restaurants frequently while others like to do this at home. Which do you prefer? Why? 66
- Do you agree that people easily learn from the friends beside them? Use specific examples and evidences to support your answer. 66
- Examine the moderating role of spiritual leadership in the relationship between intellectual capital and organizational excellence in the public agencies in Iranshahr 56
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 220, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: In
...the cause of disturbance in their life. in other words, for children in low ages, ...
^^
Line 3, column 596, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: For
...rs old, he saw a crime in their street. for this scene, he has been not talking sin...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
consequently, hence, if, may, so, therefore, thus, while, for example, for instance, in other words
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 15.1003584229 113% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 9.8082437276 82% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 13.8261648746 51% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 16.0 11.0286738351 145% => OK
Pronoun: 52.0 43.0788530466 121% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 50.0 52.1666666667 96% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 8.0752688172 87% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1774.0 1977.66487455 90% => OK
No of words: 371.0 407.700716846 91% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.78167115903 4.8611393121 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.38877662729 4.48103885553 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.59672694444 2.67179642975 97% => OK
Unique words: 197.0 212.727598566 93% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.530997304582 0.524837075471 101% => OK
syllable_count: 549.0 618.680645161 89% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.51630824373 99% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 12.0 9.59856630824 125% => OK
Article: 3.0 3.08781362007 97% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 3.51792114695 199% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.86738351254 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.94265232975 61% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 20.6003584229 87% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 20.1344086022 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 40.9346437841 48.9658058833 84% => OK
Chars per sentence: 98.5555555556 100.406767564 98% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.6111111111 20.6045352989 100% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.5 5.45110844103 101% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.5376344086 36% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 0.0 11.8709677419 0% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 16.0 3.85842293907 415% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.88709677419 41% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.160722985071 0.236089414692 68% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0552180776524 0.076458572812 72% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0591313448874 0.0737576698707 80% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.108447760465 0.150856017488 72% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0487796960799 0.0645574589148 76% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.4 11.7677419355 97% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 59.64 58.1214874552 103% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.10430107527 51% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 10.1575268817 97% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.44 10.9000537634 96% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.16 8.01818996416 102% => OK
difficult_words: 83.0 86.8835125448 96% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 10.002688172 115% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.0537634409 99% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 10.247311828 98% => 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: 70.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 21.0 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.