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 specific reasons and examples to support your answer
Regarding the best way to get information, answers can vary considerably from individual to individual. Some people think that it is better to obtain the information whose views are similar to themselves, while others believe that acquiring the information on converse side is more critical. As far as I am concerned, my experience leads me to conclude that the later is more convincing, and I will explain why I stand the viewpoint in the following essay.
To begin with, only read the information that prposed by those whose opinions are similar to us causes the problem of echo chambers. Even though people might consider it can reinforce their positions on the issue, it truly restricts their visoin and makes you easily be cheated, instead. Take my experience for example, I have the strong belief toward gender equality. In the past, I only abosrbed the information that fit my position. Once I was raged by a fake which claims the government might pass a law that would damage the right of woman. In fact, the news was the fake news, and I was almost accidiently cheated by the news. The event indicates the risk of echo chamber.
On the other hands, obtaining diverse information benefits people a lot. First of all, it expands the horizen on many aspects. As long as you realize the people on opposite postion have their reasons, you are able to think the issue more deeply, widely, and more thoroughly. Futhermore, people might learn addtional knowledge on the process of looking for different information, because you still do not understand the reason why they hold this belief. For example, I am a believer on anti-nuclear-power. Yet, when I wanted to look for the information on supporting the nuclear plant, I learned a lot of knowledge about the protential benefits on the nuclear. Even though my postion remain, I have to admit that I learned a lot from the counterside.
In a nutshell, I firmly believe that aborbing the information on the other side is more important that grabbing information on the same side. It is to avoid the issue of echo chamber and to aborb the information on every aspects. Hence, I believe I have substantiated reasons to support my point of view
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-04-17 | Mitra-T | 76 | view |
| 2023-04-17 | Hossein2000 | 90 | view |
| 2023-04-10 | KimiaKermanshahian | 80 | view |
| 2023-03-20 | redark777 | 90 | view |
| 2023-01-16 | janfaisal | 73 | view |
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement The ability to maintain friendships with a small number of people over a long period of time is more important for happiness than the ability to make many new friends easily Use specific reasons and ex 80
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement Teachers were more appreciated and valued by society in the past than they were nowadays Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer 80
- Some parents offer their school age children money for each high grade mark they get in school Do you think this is a good idea 70
- Workers are more satisfied when they have many different types of tasks to do during the workday than when they do similar tasks all day long Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer 70
- TPO64 3
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 437, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “Once” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...d the information that fit my position. Once I was raged by a fake which claims the ...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, hence, if, look, regarding, so, still, while, for example, in fact, first of all, to begin with, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 15.1003584229 79% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 9.8082437276 71% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 13.8261648746 36% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 13.0 11.0286738351 118% => OK
Pronoun: 47.0 43.0788530466 109% => OK
Preposition: 48.0 52.1666666667 92% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 8.0752688172 211% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1826.0 1977.66487455 92% => OK
No of words: 376.0 407.700716846 92% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.85638297872 4.8611393121 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.40348946061 4.48103885553 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.85669002668 2.67179642975 107% => OK
Unique words: 200.0 212.727598566 94% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.531914893617 0.524837075471 101% => OK
syllable_count: 577.8 618.680645161 93% => 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: 2.0 3.08781362007 65% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 3.51792114695 199% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.86738351254 161% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.94265232975 121% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 20.6003584229 97% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 20.1344086022 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 43.6892435274 48.9658058833 89% => OK
Chars per sentence: 91.3 100.406767564 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.8 20.6045352989 91% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.05 5.45110844103 111% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.5376344086 18% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 11.8709677419 93% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 3.85842293907 156% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.88709677419 61% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.152456033502 0.236089414692 65% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.038756601628 0.076458572812 51% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0462894304865 0.0737576698707 63% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0877782633723 0.150856017488 58% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0293593864026 0.0645574589148 45% => 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: 10.9 11.7677419355 93% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 61.67 58.1214874552 106% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.10430107527 51% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 10.1575268817 90% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.91 10.9000537634 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.31 8.01818996416 104% => OK
difficult_words: 90.0 86.8835125448 104% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 10.002688172 145% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.0537634409 92% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 10.247311828 107% => 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.