Large shopping malls are replacing small local shops in cities and towns. In your own experience, is it a positive development?
Recently, replacement of large shopping malls with small ones has sparked an ongoing controversy, which inevitably leads to a moot question, "is it a positive development?". Whereas it is a widely held view that cities need expanded shopping malls is highly beneficial, I will discuss the controversial aspects of that throughout this essay.
From the economical standpoint, shopping habits developments are bound up inextricably with the accessibility of malls, which indicate they lead to both big malls and city centers. As a well-known example, a longitudinal study conducted by eminent scientists in 2014 demonstrates the relationship between small stores and local shops as well as an exponential decrease in money expenditure. Their academic criticism was impressive. Consequently, my empirical evidence presented thus far support the contention that the likelihood of large shopping malls replacement is correlated positively with not only cities but also towns.
Within the realm of social science, without the slightest doubt, store replacement attribute to big shopping malls and small local ones, in that it would come down to city centers, transportation, and traffic congestion. A salient example of such attribution is Dubie mall, which is a cause of concern since it was mistaken to take local shops for granted. Had there been a paradigm shift earlier, scholars might have had the opportunity to pinpoint large markets' problems. Hence, it is reasonable to infer the pivotal role of changing purchase habits.
To conclude, as for myself, as the saying goes "all's well that ends well," after analyzing what elaborated above, I entirely agree that replacing small local shops with large ones is highly beneficial. However, we perceive that, with the benefit of hindsight, the more we research, the further we discover.
- As cities expanding, some people claim governments should look forward creating better networks of public transportationavailable for everyone rather than building more roads for vehicle owning population. What’s your opinion? Give some examples or expe 77
- Cashless society is becoming a reality. More and more people are using credit cards for payment, and less people use cash. Howrealistic do you think it is ? And do you think it is beneficial or problematic? 85
- Nowadays many young people leave home at an early age to either study or work in another city.'Do you think this has more advantages or disadvantages for young people? Support your point of view with reasons and examples from your own experience. 77
- As cities expanding, some people claim governments should look forward creating better networks of public transportationavailable for everyone rather than building more roads for vehicle owning population. What’s your opinion? Give some examples or expe 77
- As cities expanding, some people claim governments should look forward creating better networks of public transportationavailable for everyone rather than building more roads for vehicle owning population. What’s your opinion? Give some examples or expe 77
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 474, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Hence,
...ity to pinpoint large markets problems. Hence it is reasonable to infer the pivotal r...
^^^^^
Line 4, column 78, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma
Suggestion: , &apos
...ying goes 'alls well that ends well,' after analyzing what elaborated above,...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, consequently, hence, however, if, so, thus, well, whereas, as for, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 10.5418719212 114% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 6.10837438424 65% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 8.36945812808 60% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 10.0 5.94088669951 168% => OK
Pronoun: 22.0 20.9802955665 105% => OK
Preposition: 36.0 31.9359605911 113% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 5.75862068966 174% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1571.0 1207.87684729 130% => OK
No of words: 284.0 242.827586207 117% => OK
Chars per words: 5.53169014085 5.00649968141 110% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.10515524023 3.92707691288 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.14159302343 2.71678728327 116% => OK
Unique words: 185.0 139.433497537 133% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.651408450704 0.580463131201 112% => OK
syllable_count: 479.7 379.143842365 127% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.57093596059 108% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.6157635468 108% => OK
Article: 4.0 1.56157635468 256% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 4.0 1.71428571429 233% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 0.931034482759 107% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 3.65517241379 192% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 12.6551724138 95% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 20.5024630542 112% => OK
Sentence length SD: 55.6903018687 50.4703680194 110% => OK
Chars per sentence: 130.916666667 104.977214359 125% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.6666666667 20.9669160288 113% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.33333333333 7.25397266985 101% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.12807881773 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.33497536946 37% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 6.9802955665 143% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 0.0 2.75862068966 0% => 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: 0.412247934492 0.242375264174 170% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.129356060385 0.0925447433944 140% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.099691681958 0.071462118173 140% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.245778087416 0.151781067708 162% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.079695554165 0.0609392437508 131% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.5 12.6369458128 131% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 39.67 53.1260098522 75% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 6.54236453202 171% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 10.9458128079 122% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.09 11.5310837438 131% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.34 8.32886699507 124% => OK
difficult_words: 100.0 55.0591133005 182% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 16.0 9.94827586207 161% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.3980295567 108% => OK
text_standard: 16.0 10.5123152709 152% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 85.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 76.5 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.