In contemporary society, where no man is an island, it comes as no surprise that maintaining the bonds with friends has always been amongst individuals' top priorities. A simple recognition of this argument leads our discussion to the controversial issues of which kind of person we should associate with. Some adhere to the belief that the intelligent people should be given preference. An alternative strategy is to make friends with the humorous ones. I am inclined to concur with the first idea, and in the ensuing paragraph the rationale behind this statement will be elaborated.
The foremost factor tipping the advantage from the latter to the former is the peer pressure, an effective incentive for the juvenile to monotonously expand their scope of knowledge. As is often the case, those who overshadow other companions, especially the youth, will hug themselves and appear an air of contempt for their fellows, consciously or unconsciously. Under such circumstances, teenagers with high self-esteem and emulation conceivably force themselves to exert themselves to catch up. Whenever their ardor gets flagging, recalling the shameful experience of being looked upon definitely lays a stepping stone to elevating their spirt immensely. It goes without saying that the indomitable courage will ultimately yield a result of more competence.
Another significant reason that deserves attention is that we are more than likely to become knowledgable when mingling with the encyclopedic partners on account of the glaring fact that we can learn from their remarkable tactics of tackling insuperable conundrums. My own experience is a compelling example of this point. There was a time when I was stuck in the trouble of preparing for my Tofel speaking exam. Due to my weak foundation, I could not speak fluently, coherently and clearly, even though the practice has drained my energy completely. Fatigued, pathetic and desperately, I felt the apprehension going through my head and was on the verge of tears. It was at my lowest ebb that I met my friend Tom who had excellent mastery of oral English. Then he imparted the knack of pronunciation, accent, tone to me. Frankly speaking, I would not have hit the target in the following exam without the enlightment.
With all factors taken into consideration, we can logically reach the conclusion that it is more advisable to cement the friendship with the ingenious mates instead of the witty. After all, peer pressure and the skill from them are integral to the intellectual development.
- Some people think that we should keep away from others to improve our relationship, because being away from people reminds us of how important they are. Others think we should always stay with others to have good relationship because we can communicate wi 90
- Some people think that we should keep away from others to improve our relationship, because being away from people reminds us of how important they are. Others think we should always stay with others to have good relationship because we can communicate wi 85
- A city wants to help teachers of its high school students (age14-18) improve their teaching. It is considering two plans:1. Choose a small group of excellent teachers; these teachers will attend a class led by an expert for additional training in how to t 85
- Your friend has the opportunity to choose either one of two types of majors (fields of study), which one of the following two majors do you think is a better choice, and why?A major that would allow him to finish years of study and get a degree sooner (so 3
- 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 80
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, frankly, if, look, so, then, after all, kind of
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 15.1003584229 113% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 9.8082437276 92% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 13.8261648746 58% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 14.0 11.0286738351 127% => OK
Pronoun: 45.0 43.0788530466 104% => OK
Preposition: 55.0 52.1666666667 105% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 8.0752688172 173% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2144.0 1977.66487455 108% => OK
No of words: 408.0 407.700716846 100% => OK
Chars per words: 5.25490196078 4.8611393121 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.49433085973 4.48103885553 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.04948848926 2.67179642975 114% => OK
Unique words: 262.0 212.727598566 123% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.642156862745 0.524837075471 122% => OK
syllable_count: 660.6 618.680645161 107% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.51630824373 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 9.59856630824 104% => OK
Article: 4.0 3.08781362007 130% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 3.51792114695 114% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.86738351254 54% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.94265232975 81% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 20.6003584229 97% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 20.1344086022 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 50.4449204579 48.9658058833 103% => OK
Chars per sentence: 107.2 100.406767564 107% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.4 20.6045352989 99% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.7 5.45110844103 50% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.5376344086 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 11.8709677419 84% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 3.85842293907 156% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.88709677419 82% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.206815533008 0.236089414692 88% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0528992285139 0.076458572812 69% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0648714246022 0.0737576698707 88% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.116821905861 0.150856017488 77% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0823298704159 0.0645574589148 128% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.5 11.7677419355 115% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 58.1214874552 88% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.10430107527 144% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 10.1575268817 109% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.17 10.9000537634 121% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.7 8.01818996416 121% => OK
difficult_words: 131.0 86.8835125448 151% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 10.002688172 85% => 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: 90.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 27.0 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.