All advertising aimed at the children under the age of 12 should be banned.
Switching the TV set from one channel to another has not been provoking any feedback in your grown-up brain, even the brightest, eye-catching advertising with “buy-buy’ slogan can’t do this. Apparently were not it for the resistance-system that has been created for years, we would have already been phoning for ordering the next pair of trousers etc. However, there is a group which is vulnerable to this influence – the children group is dreadfully obsessed with all these adverted stuff (toys, dolls, electro-machines and so on). While one may be absolutely convinced that there is no problem, a number of recently published research papers argue that there is in fact a case.
First of all, according to the innumerable explorations the human brain is being in the state of developing until a person receives the age of 25 years. So, all information that is covering during the first quarter of our life is forming our personality, enduring dispositions, traits. Ineluctably, the condition of being attacked by stimulating advs evokes this obsession - of buying and buying new stuff constantly - which doesn’t seem to be a desirable trait or either useful characteristic in our children’s future lives.
On this wave, one might be committed in blaming the innovation – including the growth of manufacturing, the Internet net-working, the digital television etc. – and one might be voting for banning any advertising of goods for the children under 12 years old. Indeed, never in the recorded history had the television been as widely developed as it does today. There is no need to refute it since there has been observed negative influence on all of us. Looking back to the introduction, there is significant exigency to protect the children group. However, what will be suitable for this?
The briefest reflection on the history of prescribing reveal that there has not been any success in this way yet, but there is a deal of pitfalls on the other side. Consider the lucid instance of the USSR – the huge country which lost control over its population in view of strict restricting of the certain types of music, books, films etc. While one may say that there were adults in this experiment and the situation with the children is completely the other one, the papers in the field of cognitive science has pointed up that at least there is no difference or even more – the younger generation, the worse outcomes would be.
Actually, it should come no surprise that in the case of the ultimate ban the aftermath could be unpredictable. Having analyzed all abovementioned info and all pros and cons, the alternative steps can be easily highlighted – reduction of timing of advertising for children, using less psychoactive approaches in it, orientation into developing games and toys.
In conclusion, given the human history there will be further developing at an unprecedented scale and the digital television is not the ultimate goal of it. Undoubtedly any future generation is in a huge need of protection, but there is no need to retreat to a Luddite attitude to innovation, rather than to embrace a positive posture to it.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-11-11 | KarinaShine | 73 | view |
- Universities should require every student to take a variety of courses outside the student s field of study 60
- Governments should offer college and university education free of charge to all students 70
- The influence of adds on children 73
- Claim When planning courses educators should take into account the interests and suggestions of their students Reason Students are more motivated to learn when they are interested in what they are studying 83
- The influence of adds on children 73
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 342, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ertain types of music, books, films etc. While one may say that there were adults...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, apparently, but, first, however, if, look, may, so, while, at least, in conclusion, in fact, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 35.0 7.48453608247 468% => Less to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 4.92783505155 304% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 13.0 5.05154639175 257% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 11.0 3.03092783505 363% => Less relative clauses wanted (maybe 'which' is over used).
Pronoun: 30.0 32.9175257732 91% => OK
Preposition: 69.0 26.3917525773 261% => Less preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 20.0 3.85567010309 519% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2655.0 937.175257732 283% => Less number of characters wanted.
No of words: 523.0 206.0 254% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.07648183556 4.54256449028 112% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.78217453174 3.78020617076 127% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.06181574336 2.54303337028 120% => OK
Unique words: 288.0 127.690721649 226% => Less unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.550669216061 0.622605031667 88% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 827.1 290.88556701 284% => syllable counts are too long.
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.41237113402 113% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 9.13402061856 22% => OK
Article: 8.0 0.824742268041 970% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 2.0 1.83505154639 109% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 0.463917525773 431% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 1.44329896907 208% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 12.6804123711 158% => OK
Sentence length: 26.0 16.3608247423 159% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 59.2536074851 44.8134815571 132% => OK
Chars per sentence: 132.75 76.5299724578 173% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.15 16.8248392259 155% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.75 4.34317383033 132% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 4.29896907216 140% => Less paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 1.0 2.54639175258 39% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 7.41237113402 108% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 1.49484536082 468% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 3.94845360825 127% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.227513266987 0.216113520407 105% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0621537774392 0.0766984524023 81% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0576650842944 0.0603063233224 96% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.113207168826 0.12726935374 89% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0581894635476 0.0580467560999 100% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.6 8.37731958763 186% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 45.09 70.7449484536 64% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 3.82989690722 292% => Smog_index is high.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 7.45979381443 180% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.48 8.71597938144 143% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.03 7.59969072165 119% => OK
difficult_words: 136.0 41.2886597938 329% => Less difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 8.62886597938 168% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 8.54432989691 145% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 8.15463917526 159% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Maximum five paragraphs wanted.
Rates: 73.0337078652 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 6.5 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.