Claim: Military training strategies, such as unit cohesion and drilling, are powerful techniques to use in a classroom.
Reason: These strategies allow students to focus on a task and think like a team, supporting one another to reach a goal.
Develop a response to the claim in which you discuss whether or not you agree with it. Focus specifically on whether or not you agree with the reason upon which the claim is based.
Military training strategies, when used in classroom, are useful in building team spirit in students. They also increase problem solving capabilities and focus of students. These are the essential qualities for doing good in real world and should be imparted by any classroom. I agree with the claim due to the following reasons.
Firstly, military training strategies are designed to be all-inclusive. This ensures that all students are involved in the task. This, in contrast with regular classroom teaching methods, encourages everyone to think. Hence learning for everyone is better. For instance, consider a typical classroom where teacher asks a question and one student answers. Other students are expected to listen carefully but there is no guarantee that they will, nor is there any incentive to do so. On the other hand a team exercise like military unit cohesion is designed such that it can not be completed even if a single student is remiss.
Secondly, they allow the students to understand each others strengths and weaknesses. This is crucial for effective team work and allows them to think like a team. One student might be good at something another is bad at, and hence undertake appropriate role for completion of task. This allows them to take full advantage of the team. Eventually they begin acknowledging people's qualities in life too and this makes the world a better place for all.
Thirdly, military is most crucial for a country and the strategies for training it are designed with care and diligence. Hence taking advantage of the strategies in classrooms is only bound to give better performance in terms of team spirit and personal focus. One may argue that the effects of military training might not carry over to a classroom setting. However, one may learn from military training and then transfer that to classroom setting. An analysis of the military training methods will reveal the basic principles on which a method is based. A new training program, based on these principles, can be remodelled for classroom needs.
To summarise, military training strategies include everyone in the group and build a strong team spirit. They are carefully designed and must be taken advantage of in classroom setting. Hence they are powerful techniques to use in a classroom.
- Claim Military training strategies such as unit cohesion and drilling are powerful techniques to use in a classroom Reason These strategies allow students to focus on a task and think like a team supporting one another to reach a goal Develop a response t 60
- The following appeared in a memorandum from the owner of Movies Galore, a chain of movie-rental stores."Because of declining profits, we must reduce operating expenses at Movies Galore's ten movie-rental stores. Raising prices is not a good opti 53
- The following appeared in an article written by Dr. Karp, an anthropologist.“Twenty years ago, Dr. Field, a noted anthropologist, visited the island of Tertia and concluded from his observations that children in Tertia were reared by an entire village r 83
- Some people believe that corporations have a responsibility to promote the well-being of the societies and environments in which they operate. Others believe that the only responsibility of corporations, provided they operate within the law, is to make as 58
- Governments in democratic societies should not restrict the public's access to information, even if it is of sensitive or classified nature.Write a response in which you examine your own position on the statement. Explore the extent to which you eith 50
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 219, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Hence,
... methods, encourages everyone to think. Hence learning for everyone is better. For in...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 84, Rule ID: IT_VBZ[1]
Message: Did you mean 'is'?
Suggestion: is
...ntry and the strategies for training it are designed with care and diligence. Hence...
^^^
Line 7, column 122, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Hence,
...t are designed with care and diligence. Hence taking advantage of the strategies in c...
^^^^^
Line 9, column 187, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Hence,
...aken advantage of in classroom setting. Hence they are powerful techniques to use in ...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, hence, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, then, third, thirdly, for instance, in contrast, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 24.0 19.5258426966 123% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.4196629213 81% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 14.8657303371 101% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 11.3162921348 71% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 22.0 33.0505617978 67% => OK
Preposition: 45.0 58.6224719101 77% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 12.9106741573 39% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1936.0 2235.4752809 87% => OK
No of words: 376.0 442.535393258 85% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.14893617021 5.05705443957 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.40348946061 4.55969084622 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.75011831508 2.79657885939 98% => OK
Unique words: 197.0 215.323595506 91% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.523936170213 0.4932671777 106% => OK
syllable_count: 599.4 704.065955056 85% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 6.24550561798 128% => OK
Article: 2.0 4.99550561798 40% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 3.10617977528 32% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.77640449438 113% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.38483146067 68% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 25.0 20.2370786517 124% => OK
Sentence length: 15.0 23.0359550562 65% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 27.1597938137 60.3974514979 45% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 77.44 118.986275619 65% => OK
Words per sentence: 15.04 23.4991977007 64% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.6 5.21951772744 107% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 7.80617977528 51% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 17.0 10.2758426966 165% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 5.13820224719 39% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.83258426966 124% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.327541410666 0.243740707755 134% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0911208127502 0.0831039109588 110% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0586691489021 0.0758088955206 77% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.185645789987 0.150359130593 123% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0204112700856 0.0667264976115 31% => 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: 10.3 14.1392134831 73% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 56.25 48.8420337079 115% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.92365168539 39% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 12.1743820225 75% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.0 12.1639044944 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.95 8.38706741573 95% => OK
difficult_words: 85.0 100.480337079 85% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 5.0 11.8971910112 42% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 8.0 11.2143820225 71% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.7820224719 68% => The average readability is low. Need to imporve the language.
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 Out of 6
---------------------
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.