There are all kinds of students, some are doing well, but others don’t. For those who are not doing well, they are, frankly speaking, not only wasting their significant time, defraying the cost of expensive tuition, but also squandering the resource from the school putting on them, not to mention the occupied opportunity preventing others who are more likely to succeed in this field. Therefore, it seems that by dissuading those who are unlikely to perform well, it’s possible to save a lot of expenditure and time, for both the students and the school.
However, a study shows that those who are likely to be the most successful in their following career, are not actually those who got a perfect grade in the school, but those who didn’t do well, yet retain their enthusiasm in the field of study. Prompt by their ardent interest toward the study, the once failed students, are able to stand up from the quandary, learn from their failure, and keep moving ahead, slowly but firmly. However, for those who never failed in their study, they are usually overconfident and try to remain a gesture of triumph, even in the later career, as a result, they would rather choose a more conservative, smoother path, because they are afraid of failure and thus become too diffident to undertake risks, where more risks underlying greater success.
From the previous example indicate that the educational institutions can only judge short term failure of a student, but not long term. That is to say, it doesn’t have sufficient amount of information to make precise prognostication for the future in the long run. Nevertheless, it’s the duty of the education system to warn students about his/her failure, in this way, students will make their own judgment, and under the previous assumption, those without much vim and zeal of the study would be more likely to drop than those with.
Conclusively, it is necessary to inform students that he/she is likely to fail, distinguish those are vigorous from aren’t, and then give courage for those with interest but dissuade those without to give more chances for others with more chances to be successful. In this way, not only does the whole system save more cost and time, but also help more students to pursue their dream.
- Governments must ensure that their major cities receive the financial support they need in order to thrive.Reason: It is primarily in cities that a nation’s cultural traditions are preserved and generated 50
- Governments must ensure that their major cities receive the financial support they need in order to thrive.Reason: It is primarily in cities that a nation’s cultural traditions are preserved and generated 78
- Some people believe that government funding of the arts is necessary to ensure that the arts can flourish and be available to all people. Others believe that government funding of the arts threatens the integrity of the arts. 58
- In any field of endeavor, it is impossible to make a significant contribution without first being strongly influenced by past achievements within that field. 50
- In any field of endeavor, it is impossible to make a significant contribution without first being strongly influenced by past achievements within that field. 66
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, frankly, however, if, nevertheless, so, then, therefore, thus, well, as a result, that is to say
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.5258426966 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 12.4196629213 32% => OK
Conjunction : 17.0 14.8657303371 114% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 11.3162921348 115% => OK
Pronoun: 39.0 33.0505617978 118% => OK
Preposition: 53.0 58.6224719101 90% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 12.9106741573 54% => More nominalization wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1917.0 2235.4752809 86% => OK
No of words: 384.0 442.535393258 87% => OK
Chars per words: 4.9921875 5.05705443957 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.4267276788 4.55969084622 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.61227773302 2.79657885939 93% => OK
Unique words: 200.0 215.323595506 93% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.520833333333 0.4932671777 106% => OK
syllable_count: 589.5 704.065955056 84% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59117977528 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 6.24550561798 128% => OK
Interrogative: 1.0 0.740449438202 135% => OK
Article: 2.0 4.99550561798 40% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 9.0 1.77640449438 507% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 4.38483146067 68% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 11.0 20.2370786517 54% => Need more sentences, or put a space between two sentences.
Sentence length: 34.0 23.0359550562 148% => OK
Sentence length SD: 85.174104628 60.3974514979 141% => OK
Chars per sentence: 174.272727273 118.986275619 146% => OK
Words per sentence: 34.9090909091 23.4991977007 149% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.6363636364 5.21951772744 204% => Less transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 7.80617977528 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 10.2758426966 68% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 5.13820224719 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.83258426966 21% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.182192433322 0.243740707755 75% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0700709969337 0.0831039109588 84% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0383959061603 0.0758088955206 51% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.110017657292 0.150359130593 73% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0305710066304 0.0667264976115 46% => 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: 19.5 14.1392134831 138% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 45.43 48.8420337079 93% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.4 12.1743820225 126% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.25 12.1639044944 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.69 8.38706741573 104% => OK
difficult_words: 82.0 100.480337079 82% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 11.8971910112 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 15.6 11.2143820225 139% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Better to have 5/6 paragraphs with 3/4 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: reason 4. address both of the views presented for reason 4 (optional)
para 6: conclusion.
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.