Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?
In the past it was easier to identify what type of career or job would lead to a secure, successful future.
Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer.
It’s hard to deny that in the past, there were so few job that could lead to successful career. And such fact may mislead ingenious people to form the opinion that it was easier to identify the job to lead to secure and successful career in the past than today. However, such a fact suffers from both logical and factual fallacies and it should be reconsidered meticulously. As far as social stability, career insight and competitive level of job are considered, I hold the view that nowadays, it is easier for people to identify the potential secure and successful job than in the past.
First and foremost, the social and world in which we are living nowadays is undoubtedly more stable than in the past. The better stable living condition provides us with more available and accessible occupations. The thriving market place provides more probability for the jobs which are considered as insecure like archeology to gain popularity and thus succeeding. That is to say, the way to be successful is not limited to the certain types in the past. We have all access to succeed.
Furthermore, the level of career insight has been increased dramatically due to the progress of average level of education. In the past, most of the people chose their career because of the force from their family and parents. So, if the average education level of their family is not high, they probably have to be the worker which have been replaced due to the great advancement in technology. However, we have more wise and democratic families nowadays, that is to say, we can choose our career more freely and our family will instruct us with their experience and knowledge.
Nevertheless, a voice arises that in the past we don’t have to consider so much about the future because we always know what is secure and what is most likely to succeed. When we reconsider this statement in a prudent way, we will find it extremely ridiculous.
In a nutshell, I maintain that it’s easier to identify the potentially secure and successful jobs nowadays than in the past. Admittedly, some people may oppose my opinion. However, as what Henry Bessemer once said, he had no fixed ideas derived from long-established practice to control or bias his mind, I believe they will compromise after being exposed to my article.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-06-25 | Zmx_6 | 73 | view |
| 2023-06-25 | Zmx_6 | 73 | view |
| 2023-03-29 | waliwaliwa | 73 | view |
| 2023-03-29 | waliwaliwa | 73 | view |
| 2023-03-29 | waliwaliwa | 73 | view |
- Movies and television have more negative effects than positive effects on the way young people behave 90
- Governments should spend more money in support of the arts than in support of athletics such as state sponsored Olympic teams 85
- People who develop many different skills are more successful than people who focus on one skill only 88
- All university students should be required to take history courses no matter what their study of field is 76
- Summarize the points made in the lecture being sure to explain how they challenge specific points made in the reading passage 3
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 51, Rule ID: MANY_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun job seems to be countable; consider using: 'few jobs'.
Suggestion: few jobs
...to deny that in the past, there were so few job that could lead to successful career. A...
^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 311, Rule ID: AS_ADJ_AS[1]
Message: Comparison is written "as insecure 'as'".
Suggestion: as
...e jobs which are considered as insecure like archeology to gain popularity and thus ...
^^^^
Line 4, column 205, Rule ID: IN_A_X_MANNER[1]
Message: Consider replacing "in a prudent way" with adverb for "prudent"; eg, "in a hasty manner" with "hastily".
...ceed. When we reconsider this statement in a prudent way, we will find it extremely ridiculous. ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, furthermore, however, if, may, nevertheless, so, thus, that is to say
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 15.1003584229 126% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 9.8082437276 82% => OK
Conjunction : 17.0 13.8261648746 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 11.0286738351 109% => OK
Pronoun: 40.0 43.0788530466 93% => OK
Preposition: 56.0 52.1666666667 107% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 8.0752688172 74% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1912.0 1977.66487455 97% => OK
No of words: 393.0 407.700716846 96% => OK
Chars per words: 4.86513994911 4.8611393121 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.45244063426 4.48103885553 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.72218730525 2.67179642975 102% => OK
Unique words: 196.0 212.727598566 92% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.498727735369 0.524837075471 95% => OK
syllable_count: 613.8 618.680645161 99% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.51630824373 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 13.0 9.59856630824 135% => OK
Article: 6.0 3.08781362007 194% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 3.51792114695 114% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.86738351254 54% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.94265232975 40% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 20.6003584229 87% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 20.1344086022 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 48.8332069269 48.9658058833 100% => OK
Chars per sentence: 106.222222222 100.406767564 106% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.8333333333 20.6045352989 106% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.22222222222 5.45110844103 77% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.53405017921 110% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.5376344086 54% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 11.8709677419 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 3.85842293907 78% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.88709677419 41% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.213846111686 0.236089414692 91% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0724905027761 0.076458572812 95% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0806520757078 0.0737576698707 109% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.116013173517 0.150856017488 77% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0748833342122 0.0645574589148 116% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.4 11.7677419355 105% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 58.1214874552 86% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.10430107527 144% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 10.1575268817 113% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.97 10.9000537634 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.21 8.01818996416 102% => OK
difficult_words: 88.0 86.8835125448 101% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 10.002688172 145% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.0537634409 103% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 10.247311828 117% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 73.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.0 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.