Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: The ability to maintaining friendships with a small number of people over a long period of time is more important for happiness than the ability to many new friends easily.
It is crystal clear that communication with friends plays an important role in humans' life and their happiness. Many people strongly hold the opinion that communication with a small group of people over a long time is a much more crucial factor in happiness than being capable of making new friends. I, personally speaking, agree with this opinion. The reasons to substantiate my view are elaborated upon in the following paragraphs.
To begin with, communication with old friends is very easier than making new friends. Old friends often know each other really well, and are familiar with each other's characteristics in depth. Therefore, they often feel relaxed when they meet. For instance, I have a friend, whom I have known for fifteen years. Whenever I see him, I talk about my emotions and convey my feelings easily. This help me to be happy and forget all my negative feelings. In addition, because he has a deep knowledge about my attributes due to long term communication, he is able to behave in such a way that I become very relaxed and calm. I behave in this way because he already knows my background and observed different occurrences which happened in my life, and never judges me. I cannot talk about my deep emotion to my new fiends, even if I have a lot of them.
Secondly, a critical factor in happiness is being able to rely on a friend, which obviously occurs among old friends more than new ones. When people interact with each other for a long time, they can understand their characteristics and their capacity of being reliable. In a long term friendship when friends find themselves trustable, they become a real family. My own experience can clearly demonstrate this. When I entered the university, I make so many new friends. Simultaneously, I met with my old friend there. Once I had a personal problem. I spoke to one of my new friends about it. He did not help me at all. Instead, he revealed my problem. I was really upset there, because I thought that he was a reliable man. In that time, my old friend told me that he was my brother, and helped me to solve that. This experience taught me that I should interact with a friend for a long time before I trust them.
To conclude, having considered mentioned reasons, I strongly believe that to be a happy human, having friends and communicate with them for a long time is more important than making new friends. This is because communicating with old friends is easier, and old friends are more reliable.
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement young people nowadays do not give enough time to helping their communities 70
- integrated task 3
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement Educating children is a more task today than it was in the past because they spend so much time on cell phones online games and social networking websites 73
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement all university student should be required to take history courses no matter what their field of study is 73
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement The ability to maintaining friendships with a small number of people over a long period of time is more important for happiness than the ability to many new friends easily 70
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 520, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “Once” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...eously, I met with my old friend there. Once I had a personal problem. I spoke to on...
^^^^
Line 4, column 288, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ier, and old friends are more reliable.
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, if, really, second, secondly, so, therefore, well, for instance, in addition, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 15.1003584229 126% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 9.8082437276 41% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 13.8261648746 80% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 11.0286738351 145% => OK
Pronoun: 75.0 43.0788530466 174% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 48.0 52.1666666667 92% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 8.0752688172 111% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2053.0 1977.66487455 104% => OK
No of words: 437.0 407.700716846 107% => OK
Chars per words: 4.69794050343 4.8611393121 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.57214883401 4.48103885553 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.77003777016 2.67179642975 104% => OK
Unique words: 212.0 212.727598566 100% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.485125858124 0.524837075471 92% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 636.3 618.680645161 103% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.51630824373 99% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 21.0 9.59856630824 219% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 2.0 3.08781362007 65% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 3.51792114695 171% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.86738351254 214% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 5.0 4.94265232975 101% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 28.0 20.6003584229 136% => OK
Sentence length: 15.0 20.1344086022 74% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 45.1696913916 48.9658058833 92% => OK
Chars per sentence: 73.3214285714 100.406767564 73% => OK
Words per sentence: 15.6071428571 20.6045352989 76% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.42857142857 5.45110844103 63% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.5376344086 36% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 20.0 11.8709677419 168% => 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: 0.268092879621 0.236089414692 114% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0785644021113 0.076458572812 103% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0792959344987 0.0737576698707 108% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.216945619894 0.150856017488 144% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0773974116721 0.0645574589148 120% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 8.5 11.7677419355 72% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 64.71 58.1214874552 111% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.10430107527 51% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.0 10.1575268817 79% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 9.68 10.9000537634 89% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.05 8.01818996416 88% => OK
difficult_words: 74.0 86.8835125448 85% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 10.002688172 85% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.0 10.0537634409 80% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 10.247311828 78% => 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: 70.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 21.0 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.