In towns and cities, large shopping malls should replace the small local shop. Do you agree or disagree?
Recently, the phenomenon of large shopping malls to be replaced by small local shops in towns and cities and its corresponding impacts have sparked a heated debate. Although contested by many that the matter of complex procedures is highly beneficial, such issue is regarded thoroughly both constructive and consequently positive by a substantial number of individuals. I am inclined to believe that encouraging developers to build shopping malls in municipal areas can be a plus, and I will analyze that throughout this essay. From a general standpoint, small local shop owners to invest in purchasing or renting spots in shopping malls can provide the society with some noticeable effects which are rooted in the fact that crucial issues, as well as ultimate outcomes, are inextricably bound up. According to my own experience, when I was a university student, I performed an academic experiment which discovered current policies. Thus, beneficial ramifications of both this common phenomenon and accordingly complicated procedures apparently can be seen. Within the realm of a public arena, the federal government to support mayors in developing a modern infrastructure in cities and towns might increase the consequences of critical needs. As a tangible example, some scientific research undertaken by a prestigious university has asserted that the downside of creative processes is correlated negatively with vital issues. Hence, it is correct to presume the preconceived notion of this remarkable phenomenon.
To conclude, while there are several compelling arguments on both sides, I profoundly believe that the benefits of more convenient and pleasurable lifestyle for citizens as a result of having large shopping malls far outweigh its drawbacks. Not only do the advantages of this unique phenomenon prove the significance of total outcomes, but also pinpoint thorny issues’ potential implications.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-09-25 | dalwindergill | 77 | view |
| 2019-08-06 | 3pid | 88 | view |
| 2019-08-06 | 3pid | 88 | view |
| 2019-08-06 | 3pid | 88 | view |
| 2019-06-20 | Simranjot7087 | 61 | view |
Transition Words or Phrases used:
accordingly, also, apparently, but, consequently, hence, if, may, so, thus, well, while, as a result, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 10.5418719212 104% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 6.10837438424 82% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 8.36945812808 108% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 5.94088669951 151% => OK
Pronoun: 19.0 20.9802955665 91% => OK
Preposition: 38.0 31.9359605911 119% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.75862068966 69% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1625.0 1207.87684729 135% => OK
No of words: 290.0 242.827586207 119% => OK
Chars per words: 5.60344827586 5.00649968141 112% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.12666770723 3.92707691288 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.21837212638 2.71678728327 118% => OK
Unique words: 190.0 139.433497537 136% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.655172413793 0.580463131201 113% => OK
syllable_count: 521.1 379.143842365 137% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.57093596059 115% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.6157635468 87% => OK
Article: 2.0 1.56157635468 128% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 1.71428571429 292% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 0.931034482759 215% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 3.65517241379 109% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 11.0 12.6551724138 87% => OK
Sentence length: 26.0 20.5024630542 127% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 49.5680515608 50.4703680194 98% => OK
Chars per sentence: 147.727272727 104.977214359 141% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.3636363636 20.9669160288 126% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.1818181818 7.25397266985 140% => OK
Paragraphs: 2.0 4.12807881773 48% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 0.0 5.33497536946 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 6.9802955665 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 2.75862068966 36% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 2.91625615764 69% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.237982859842 0.242375264174 98% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0765427332215 0.0925447433944 83% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.112415025591 0.071462118173 157% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.165655883495 0.151781067708 109% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0526889437379 0.0609392437508 86% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 18.1 12.6369458128 143% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 28.17 53.1260098522 53% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 13.0 6.54236453202 199% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.8 10.9458128079 144% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.5 11.5310837438 134% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 11.08 8.32886699507 133% => OK
difficult_words: 113.0 55.0591133005 205% => Less difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 15.0 9.94827586207 151% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 10.3980295567 119% => OK
text_standard: 16.0 10.5123152709 152% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Minimum four paragraphs wanted.
Rates: 55.5555555556 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 50.0 Out of 90
---------------------
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.