Nowadays it is not important for people to have regularly family meals together.
Of those issues that have concerned and involved many societies and the public, close-knit families are one of the most prominent. Many people believe that today's families do not tend to have meals with each other. However, some others stand at the other extreme, holding the view that having dinner or launch together is rewarding. Yet to the best of my knowledge, I side with those people considering regularly family meals together worthwhile. I lend credence to this view in the following paragraphs.
First and foremost, what provokes family members to regularly eat food along with each other is that this will gather families together, cultivating a sense of collectivism. It is crystal clear that with the pace of life speeding up, people have been suffering from loneliness derived from living in bustle and hustle of city life. Therefore, a busy lifestyle is one culprit of keeping family members apart from each other. It has been acknowledged that individualism is more prevalent in many developed, first-world countries, which can be considered as one of the elements imposing distress and discomfort; the presence of which will lead to stress-induced diseases. Therefore, it is imperative that people be aware of the benefits of having regular meals together, contributing them to improve their reciprocal relations. Not until families take advantage of concrete relations can all members of a family accompany each other to eat food, thereby maintaining and alleviating their mutuality
Another justification for having meals along with other family members is it strengthens their ties, cultivating a sense of satisfaction. To elucidate more on this issue, many parents in the Westworld are suffering from empty-nest syndrome. Correspondingly, their children are involved with the hurdles and problems in their daily life. So, they forget to recall their benevolent, compassionate parents. Having considered all the value of being together, many companies have entitled their employees the leave payment on the assumption that they spend more time with the parents, helping them feel better about themselves, and releasing them from the burden of loneliness pressure. Attained target about basic needs, such as food, shelter, and healthcare, people tend to higher aspirations: belongingness, love. So influential is the role of family that having regular meals can be recognized as one addresses that heighten and broaden individuals' awareness about their families.
In the final analysis, I have to reiterate my standpoint that people tend to have meals together. Not only does this lead to aggregating family members, but it also concretes their relations. It is worth bearing in mind that the family is the cornerstone of progress in any given society.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-05-02 | handsomepot | 90 | view |
| 2019-05-02 | handsomepot | 88 | view |
- TPO1 8
- Nowadays it is not important for people to have regularly family meals together. 73
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? The rules that societies today expect young people to follow and obey are too strict. Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer. 76
- Which one of the following values is the most important to share with a young child (5-10 years old)?1-being helpful2-Being honest3-Being well organized 90
- In order to be successful, one has to make enemies. Do you agree or disagree? 76
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, so, then, therefore, while, apart from, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 15.1003584229 126% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 9.8082437276 51% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 13.8261648746 94% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 11.0286738351 127% => OK
Pronoun: 44.0 43.0788530466 102% => OK
Preposition: 66.0 52.1666666667 127% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 8.0752688172 74% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2345.0 1977.66487455 119% => OK
No of words: 434.0 407.700716846 106% => OK
Chars per words: 5.40322580645 4.8611393121 111% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.56428161445 4.48103885553 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.9364504048 2.67179642975 110% => OK
Unique words: 227.0 212.727598566 107% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.523041474654 0.524837075471 100% => OK
syllable_count: 733.5 618.680645161 119% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.51630824373 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 9.59856630824 94% => OK
Article: 2.0 3.08781362007 65% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 3.51792114695 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 4.0 1.86738351254 214% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 4.94265232975 61% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 20.6003584229 97% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 20.1344086022 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 66.6982008753 48.9658058833 136% => OK
Chars per sentence: 117.25 100.406767564 117% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.7 20.6045352989 105% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.9 5.45110844103 72% => OK
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 : 5.0 3.85842293907 130% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.88709677419 102% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.33111949013 0.236089414692 140% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.104287108374 0.076458572812 136% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0966456275834 0.0737576698707 131% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.22912675922 0.150856017488 152% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0230433937547 0.0645574589148 36% => 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: 14.9 11.7677419355 127% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.7 58.1214874552 72% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.10430107527 144% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 10.1575268817 125% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.04 10.9000537634 129% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.19 8.01818996416 115% => OK
difficult_words: 124.0 86.8835125448 143% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.002688172 80% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.0537634409 103% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 10.247311828 146% => 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: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.0 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.