The ability to learn more than one language will be less important in the future. Do you agree or disagree?
Recently, the ability to learn more than one language has sparked an ongoing controversy, which inevitably leads to a moot question "would it be important in the future?". Whereas it is a widely held view that learning more than one language is highly beneficial. I will discuss the controversial aspects of that throughout this essay.
From the linguistic and social standpoint, learning a new language is bound up inextricably with knowing a new culture, which indicates they lead to both communicative skills and language improvement. As a well-known example, a longitudinal study conducted by eminent scientists demonstrates the relationship between cognitive skills and globalization as well as an exponential increase in learning an official language. Their academic criticism was impressive. Consequently, my empirical experience presented thus so far the contention that the likelihood of international connections is positively correlated to not only expression power but also a profound social skill.
Within the realm of career, without the slightest doubt, studying more than one language attribute to job opportunities, in that it would come down to incentives, perks, and promotions. A salient example of such attribution is multinational companies, which is a cause of concern since it was mistaken to take mother tongue for granted. Had there been a paradigm shift earlier, scholars have had the opportunity to pinpoint native speakers problems. Likewise, hardly had they have confined their attention to job promotions, higher income, and even language-intensive careers. Hence, it is correct to infer the pivotal role of speaking several languages.
To conclude, as for myself, as the saying goes "all's well that ends well," after analyzing what elaborated above, I entirely agree that ability to learn more than one language is undeniably important. However, with the benefit of hindsight, we conceive the more we research, the further we discover.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 183, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “Whereas” 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.
...d it be important in the future?'. Whereas it is a widely held view that learning ...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, 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, likewise, 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: 3.0 6.10837438424 49% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 8.36945812808 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 5.94088669951 151% => OK
Pronoun: 23.0 20.9802955665 110% => OK
Preposition: 35.0 31.9359605911 110% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 5.75862068966 122% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1697.0 1207.87684729 140% => OK
No of words: 300.0 242.827586207 124% => OK
Chars per words: 5.65666666667 5.00649968141 113% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.16179145029 3.92707691288 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.31306336928 2.71678728327 122% => OK
Unique words: 195.0 139.433497537 140% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.65 0.580463131201 112% => OK
syllable_count: 529.2 379.143842365 140% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.57093596059 115% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.6157635468 130% => OK
Article: 4.0 1.56157635468 256% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 4.0 1.71428571429 233% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 0.931034482759 215% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 7.0 3.65517241379 192% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 12.6551724138 111% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 20.5024630542 102% => OK
Sentence length SD: 58.2202450937 50.4703680194 115% => OK
Chars per sentence: 121.214285714 104.977214359 115% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.4285714286 20.9669160288 102% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.0 7.25397266985 96% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.12807881773 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.33497536946 37% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 6.9802955665 158% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 2.75862068966 36% => 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: 0.266599035038 0.242375264174 110% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0769547407458 0.0925447433944 83% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0932631171185 0.071462118173 131% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.163971000259 0.151781067708 108% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.113608804885 0.0609392437508 186% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.9 12.6369458128 126% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 33.24 53.1260098522 63% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 6.54236453202 171% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 10.9458128079 126% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.55 11.5310837438 135% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.36 8.32886699507 124% => OK
difficult_words: 108.0 55.0591133005 196% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.5 9.94827586207 126% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.3980295567 100% => OK
text_standard: 16.0 10.5123152709 152% => 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.