Children rely too much on the technology, like computers, smartphones, video games for fun and entertainment. Playing simpler toys or playing outside with friends would be better for children’ s development.
It goes without saying that in today’s technological world, children have access to various entertainments. In this regard, some people believe that children can grow efficiently if they play with simpler toys or play with friends outside, while there are those who think otherwise. From my perspective, having fun with simpler entertainments or playing with friends outside, children can evaluate effectively. The rationale behind this idea will be elaborated upon and exemplified in the ensuing paragraphs by focusing on two major reasons.
First and foremost, if children play with uncomplicated toys, they have opportunities to improve their creativity. In fact, engaging in simpler toys, children apply their thoughts about creating various things. This clearly clarifies the fact that children manipulate toys in diverse manners. For instance, my little brother, who is four years old, play logos in different ways. Sometimes, he builds a tower then after destroying it, he tries to make other shapes, and he attempts to utilize various colors and shapes of logos in his constructions. Thus, playing with varied logos, he can improve his creativity by making various configurations.
Another reason which deserves some words here is that playing with friends outside, children can enhance their social activities. As a matter of fact, they have interactions with their friends in assorted situations, so it helps them to be sociable individuals in the future. This obviously demonstrates the fact that by communicating with others who have distinct personalities, children learn to behave appropriately in different conditions. To illustrate, a rather recent yet substantially important social study at Tehran University in my country Iran can be pointed out. Researchers investigated two groups of children based on their social skills. Their results showed that children who play outside with their friends and they had more interactions became more sociable in comparing with their counterparts.
Put briefly, having taken all of the aforementioned ideas into consideration, one can safely assume that by playing with simpler toys and playing outside with friends, children not only can promote their imagination but also they have the chance to improve their social skills. I recommend that parents pay attention to this pivotal point for establishing best developing conditions for their children.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 434, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...builds a tower then after destroying it, he tries to make other shapes, and he at...
^^
Line 3, column 738, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... outside with their friends and they had more interactions became more sociable ...
^^
Line 3, column 778, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... more interactions became more sociable in comparing with their counterparts. ...
^^
Line 4, column 27, Rule ID: ALL_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'all the'.
Suggestion: all the
...unterparts. Put briefly, having taken all of the aforementioned ideas into consideration...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, briefly, but, first, if, so, then, thus, while, for instance, in fact, as a matter of fact
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 6.0 15.1003584229 40% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 9.8082437276 82% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 13.8261648746 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 11.0286738351 118% => OK
Pronoun: 44.0 43.0788530466 102% => OK
Preposition: 59.0 52.1666666667 113% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 8.0752688172 62% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2053.0 1977.66487455 104% => OK
No of words: 366.0 407.700716846 90% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.60928961749 4.8611393121 115% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.37391431897 4.48103885553 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.0347271399 2.67179642975 114% => OK
Unique words: 212.0 212.727598566 100% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.579234972678 0.524837075471 110% => OK
syllable_count: 603.0 618.680645161 97% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.51630824373 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 11.0 9.59856630824 115% => OK
Article: 2.0 3.08781362007 65% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 3.51792114695 85% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.86738351254 54% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.94265232975 81% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 20.6003584229 87% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 20.1344086022 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 45.8450153463 48.9658058833 94% => OK
Chars per sentence: 114.055555556 100.406767564 114% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.3333333333 20.6045352989 99% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.33333333333 5.45110844103 98% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.5376344086 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 14.0 11.8709677419 118% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 3.85842293907 26% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.88709677419 61% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.300263004405 0.236089414692 127% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.106692247503 0.076458572812 140% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0649915768556 0.0737576698707 88% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.209093034026 0.150856017488 139% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0412757542278 0.0645574589148 64% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.2 11.7677419355 129% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 58.1214874552 88% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.10430107527 144% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 10.1575268817 109% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.26 10.9000537634 140% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.77 8.01818996416 109% => OK
difficult_words: 96.0 86.8835125448 110% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 10.002688172 120% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.0537634409 99% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.247311828 88% => 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: 76.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.0 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.