Some languages are increasingly spoken in different countries, while the usage of others is rapidly declining. Is this a positive or a negative development?
Recently, the phenomenon of spoken languages in different countries and its corresponding impact has sparked a heated debate. Although contested by many that the matters of using languages are highly beneficial, such an issue is regarded thoroughly both constructive and positive by a substantial number of individuals. I am inclined to conceive that rapid developments can be a plus, and I will investigate that throughout this essay.
From a social standpoint, speaking different languages can provide society with noticeable effects which are rooted in the fact that merits, as well as the advantages of a positive development, are significant. According to my own experience, I performed an academic experiment that discovered the importance of developing countries. Thus, the beneficial ramifications of using different languages are remarkable.
From a scientific point of view, speaking languages in different countries can supply the community with negative influences which are associated with the reality that the demerits of rapid developments are crucial. As a tangible example, some scientific research undertaken by an elite university described the declining usage of languages. Hence, predicted outcomes of inefficient countries are critical.
To conclude, while there are several compelling arguments on both sides, I profoundly believe that the benefits of speaking some languages in different countries far outweigh its drawbacks. Not only do the advantages of using several languages prove the significance of an awful development, but also pinpoint possible implications.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2021-11-26 | gracespeakss1 | 11 | view |
| 2021-11-26 | gracespeakss1 | 11 | view |
| 2021-11-26 | gracespeakss1 | 11 | view |
| 2021-10-18 | sahar.sharifi.1984 | 85 | view |
| 2021-10-18 | sahar.sharifi.1984 | 85 | view |
- Experience is a more effective way to teach compared to books Agree or disagree 88
- What is your idea about lazy journalism that is commonplace in the digitalized world 77
- Should individual limit the use of car and use alternative things instead to protect environment 85
- What are the different methods students using to achieve information Online materials asking teachers or discussing with classmates 88
- Is hosting the Olympic Games bring any benefit to the host countries 88
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, hence, if, so, thus, well, while, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.5418719212 95% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 6.10837438424 65% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 8.36945812808 48% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 9.0 5.94088669951 151% => OK
Pronoun: 15.0 20.9802955665 71% => OK
Preposition: 30.0 31.9359605911 94% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.75862068966 104% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1363.0 1207.87684729 113% => OK
No of words: 233.0 242.827586207 96% => OK
Chars per words: 5.84978540773 5.00649968141 117% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.90696013833 3.92707691288 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.31713292598 2.71678728327 122% => OK
Unique words: 140.0 139.433497537 100% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.600858369099 0.580463131201 104% => OK
syllable_count: 437.4 379.143842365 115% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.9 1.57093596059 121% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.6157635468 65% => OK
Article: 2.0 1.56157635468 128% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 1.71428571429 233% => 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: 21.0 20.5024630542 102% => OK
Sentence length SD: 49.0794599444 50.4703680194 97% => OK
Chars per sentence: 123.909090909 104.977214359 118% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.1818181818 20.9669160288 101% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.0 7.25397266985 69% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.12807881773 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.33497536946 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 6.9802955665 86% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 2.75862068966 72% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 2.91625615764 103% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.346369744401 0.242375264174 143% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.107783738281 0.0925447433944 116% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0535397085433 0.071462118173 75% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.185004751924 0.151781067708 122% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0454525215149 0.0609392437508 75% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.7 12.6369458128 132% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 24.78 53.1260098522 47% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 11.2 6.54236453202 171% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.0 10.9458128079 137% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.65 11.5310837438 144% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.57 8.32886699507 127% => OK
difficult_words: 87.0 55.0591133005 158% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.0 9.94827586207 151% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.3980295567 100% => OK
text_standard: 17.0 10.5123152709 162% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 88.8888888889 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 80.0 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.