Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? People in the past are more interested in improving their neighborhood (the area where they live)
Neighborhood as a part of the social network, while nowadays its portion in the social interaction has a significant change. Personally, people in the past were more likely to strengthen and improve their neighborhood than people in today because of the social circumstance, technology, and building structure.
First of all, in the past, the social environment brought people a simple lifestyle, resulting in their limited exposure to a broad social network. During 50s-70s in China, the most common transportation was bike, most people were usually walking; since the train and airplane were not affordable and convenient, people took public bus only if they needed to go to a distant city. Thus, a family was living with their relatives closely or in the same neighborhood; with the inaccessible transportation, people contacted with nearby neighborhood instead of other distant areas. Different from the past, people now have more chance to develop their social network. Indeed, fast-paced life let people engage in their job, education, and future design, so they do not have more flexible time for improving the neighborhood. Also, gradually increased economy brings people more business chances, leading them to spend more time to establish various and necessary social connection but not focus on the additional association with the neighborhood.
Additionally, devoid of technologic development, people were focusing more on improving the neighborhood. During 50s-70s, not everyone has a telephone at home, not mention to possess a cell phone, so it is hard for them to keep in touch with someone who lived far away. Also, some community or neighborhood was sharing one or two television. Thus, people who live in the same community have more chance to get gather, exchanging ideas, informing each other about news or several pieces of information. On the other hand, besides the fast-paced lifestyle, enveloping in various types of advanced technology – internet, smartphone and social media has changed the way how people develop social connection. Compare to find a suitable time to meet neighbors, using these technologies are more efficient for people to build social network. As a result, they do not limit in improving neighborhood anymore.
Furthermore, with the compact habitation structure in the past, improving neighborhood was easier than current society. Take Beijing for example, the most common type of house structure was courtyard, named “si he yuan.” Generally, five to six family lived in one courtyard. They interacted with each other every day. However, currently, the modern houses are more private, people go to work in the morning and go back home at night, even living in the same building, they rarely have a chance to get together with their neighbors.
In conclusion, because of the different time, availability of technology, and modern construction, people in the today are not likely interested in improving neighborhood than people in the past.
- Educators should teach facts only after their students have studied the ideas, trends, and concepts that help explain those facts. 66
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? People in the past are more interested in improving their neighborhood (the area where they live) 90
- There is little justification for society to make extraordinary efforts—especially at a great cost in money and jobs—to save endangered animal or plant species. 83
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 197, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...g neighborhood than people in the past.
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, besides, but, first, furthermore, however, if, so, then, thus, while, for example, in conclusion, as a result, first of all, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 15.1003584229 86% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 0.0 9.8082437276 0% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 13.8261648746 101% => OK
Relative clauses : 2.0 11.0286738351 18% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 17.0 43.0788530466 39% => OK
Preposition: 71.0 52.1666666667 136% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 8.0752688172 173% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2544.0 1977.66487455 129% => OK
No of words: 469.0 407.700716846 115% => OK
Chars per words: 5.42430703625 4.8611393121 112% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.65364457471 4.48103885553 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.98651807927 2.67179642975 112% => OK
Unique words: 245.0 212.727598566 115% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.522388059701 0.524837075471 100% => OK
syllable_count: 790.2 618.680645161 128% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.51630824373 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 9.59856630824 31% => OK
Article: 5.0 3.08781362007 162% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 3.51792114695 114% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.86738351254 161% => OK
Preposition: 10.0 4.94265232975 202% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 20.6003584229 97% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 20.1344086022 114% => OK
Sentence length SD: 53.7762726488 48.9658058833 110% => OK
Chars per sentence: 127.2 100.406767564 127% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.45 20.6045352989 114% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.4 5.45110844103 136% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.53405017921 110% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.5376344086 18% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 11.8709677419 101% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 3.85842293907 104% => 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: 0.348909395873 0.236089414692 148% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.12180637845 0.076458572812 159% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0706679300718 0.0737576698707 96% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.215856295179 0.150856017488 143% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0473883857408 0.0645574589148 73% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.8 11.7677419355 134% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 39.67 58.1214874552 68% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.10430107527 144% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 10.1575268817 132% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.45 10.9000537634 133% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.92 8.01818996416 111% => OK
difficult_words: 123.0 86.8835125448 142% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 10.002688172 145% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.0537634409 111% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.247311828 88% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.