There is a widespread saying that books and novels spur the imagination and language skills much more than any TV programme. I believe that this notion holds true no matter what modern technologies are used on TV and TV media production. The reasons are simple, because reading is an active form of learning while watching TV is mostly passive.
Reading for pleasure, as an active method of knowledge acquisition, allows people to create and memorize concepts more clearly. Firstly, the text format pushes readers to purposefully, in their minds, convert words into unique images and sentences into motion pictures. For example, the Harry Potter series of novels have allowed fans to create and construct their representation of the wizard world that is filled with magic and spells. Many readers continue to dream up myriads of spin-off stories based on the characters after the final book. Secondly, the process of reading also allows people to learn better by letting people control their own pace of studying. One can pause at any moment to reread, review, absorb new information, and avoid getting overwhelmed. This ability to stop and ponder is particularly helpful when trying to familiarize oneself with a new language. Many studies have shown a strong linkage between time spent reading and vocabulary improvements.
Watching TV, on the other hand, does not have any of the aforementioned merits. Viewers can only watch the visualization that is given and predefined by TV programmes. Since no extra effort in thinking is needed, people who watch a lot of TV will most likely be lazy to conceptualize any originality in imagination. For example, if children grow up only watching the Lords of the Rings movies and not knowing the books, they will only have one way, and the same way, of describing a dwarf, an elf or a hobbit. Moreover, the languages used on TV are also mostly informal and straightforward, in tune with the needs to deliver information quickly. Therefore, while the listening skill is likely to improve after prolonged exposure to the TV, not much else can be developed, linguistically.
In conclusion, reading books is by far superior to watching TV in terms of creativity and language development because reading gives people total control of their minds. In a world flooded with information, the ability to control your thoughts is the key to improve oneself.
There is a widespread saying that books and novels spur the imagination and language skills much more than any TV programme. I believe that this notion holds true no matter what modern technologies are used on TV and TV media production. The reasons are simple, because reading is an active form of learning while watching TV is mostly passive.
Reading for pleasure, as an active method of knowledge acquisition, allows people to create and memorize concepts more clearly. Firstly, the text format pushes readers to purposefully, in their minds, convert words into unique images and sentences into motion pictures. For example, the Harry Potter series of novels have allowed fans to create and construct their representation of the wizard world that is filled with magic and spells. Many readers continue to dream up myriads of spin-off stories based on the characters after the final book. Secondly, the process of reading also allows people to learn better by letting people control their own pace of studying. One can pause at any moment to reread, review, absorb new information, and avoid getting overwhelmed. This ability to stop and ponder is particularly helpful when trying to familiarize oneself with a new language. Many studies have shown a strong linkage between time spent reading and vocabulary improvements.
Watching TV, on the other hand, does not have any of the aforementioned merits. Viewers can only watch the visualization that is given and predefined by TV programmes. Since no extra effort in thinking is needed, people who watch a lot of TV will most likely be lazy to conceptualize any originality in imagination. For example, if children grow up only watching the Lords of the Rings movies and not knowing the books, they will only have one way, and the same way, of describing a dwarf, an elf or a hobbit. Moreover, the languages used on TV are also mostly informal and straightforward, in tune with the needs to deliver information quickly. Therefore, while the listening skill is likely to improve after prolonged exposure to the TV, not much else can be developed, linguistically.
In conclusion, reading books is by far superior to watching TV in terms of creativity and language development because reading gives people total control of their minds. In a world flooded with information, the ability to control your thoughts is the key to improve oneself.
- The pie charts compare the water usage of various sectors of the economy in Sydney in two years 1997 and 2007 Overall it is clear that the sector which used the highest percentage of water was the food industry The percentage of total water use by the ser
- The line graph illustrates the amount of money which is received by rice exports from Thailand and Vietnam during the period from 2012 to 2015 It is evident that the prices of rice exports decreased tremendously from 2012 to 2015 Meanwhile the cost remain 56
- The table illustrates how much money was donated to developing countries in the period 2006 2010 by US and EU charities to support technological development Overall it is clear that total aid increased during this period US aid was considerably higher tha 56
- some people nowadays believe that modern technology has made shopping easier while others disagree Discuss both views and give your opinion 78
- The charts illustrate the number of people who were affected by four types of noise pollution in day and night in cities and rural areas in 2007 67
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 608, Rule ID: AFFORD_VB[1]
Message: This verb is used with the infinitive: 'to better', 'to well'
Suggestion: to better; to well
... of reading also allows people to learn better by letting people control their own pac...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 231, Rule ID: A_LOT_OF_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun TV seems to be countable; consider using: 'a lot of TVs'.
Suggestion: a lot of TVs
...in thinking is needed, people who watch a lot of TV will most likely be lazy to conceptuali...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, firstly, if, moreover, second, secondly, so, therefore, while, for example, in conclusion, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 13.1623246493 114% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 7.85571142285 64% => OK
Conjunction : 16.0 10.4138276553 154% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 7.30460921844 82% => OK
Pronoun: 15.0 24.0651302605 62% => OK
Preposition: 56.0 41.998997996 133% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 8.3376753507 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2006.0 1615.20841683 124% => OK
No of words: 393.0 315.596192385 125% => OK
Chars per words: 5.10432569975 5.12529762239 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.45244063426 4.20363070211 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.85656248643 2.80592935109 102% => OK
Unique words: 226.0 176.041082164 128% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.575063613232 0.561755894193 102% => OK
syllable_count: 620.1 506.74238477 122% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.60771543086 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 5.43587174349 55% => OK
Article: 7.0 2.52805611222 277% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 5.0 2.10420841683 238% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 0.809619238477 247% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 7.0 4.76152304609 147% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 16.0721442886 118% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 20.2975951904 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 28.9340639282 49.4020404114 59% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 105.578947368 106.682146367 99% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.6842105263 20.7667163134 100% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.36842105263 7.06120827912 90% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.01903807615 40% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 8.67935871743 150% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 3.9879759519 50% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 3.4128256513 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.33666536976 0.244688304435 138% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.104971339738 0.084324248473 124% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.16312869059 0.0667982634062 244% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.252145025371 0.151304729494 167% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.273427164568 0.056905535591 480% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.9 13.0946893788 99% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 50.2224549098 102% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 11.3001002004 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.3 12.4159519038 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.97 8.58950901804 104% => OK
difficult_words: 108.0 78.4519038076 138% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 9.78957915832 112% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.1190380762 99% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.7795591182 83% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 84.2696629213 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.5 Out of 9
---------------------
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.