Dealing with money as an important skill for life, as a taught course in school to children for financial management.
Recently the phenomenon of money dealing and its corresponding impact has sparked a heated debate. Although contested by many that the matter of money management skills is highly beneficial, such issue is regarded thoroughly both constructive and positive by a substantial number of individuals. I am inclined to believe that financial management courses can be a plus, and I will analyze that throughout this essay.
From a social standpoint, teaching children about money management can provide the society with some noticeable effects which are rooted in the fact that merits of children’s financial behaviors as well as children tendencies are inextricably bound up. According to my own experience, when I was a university student, I performed an academic experiment which discovered financial responsibility. Thus, beneficial ramifications of money management habits and saving money apparently can be seen.
Within the realm of science, financial management skills might increase the consequences of financial responsibilities. Moreover, fundamental impacts of school effective strategies could relate to the reality that the demerits of budget management pertain to important money lessons. As a tangible example, there are some scientific research undertaken by a prestigious university has asserted that the downside of basic financial principles is correlated negatively with kid’s abilities. Hence, it is correct to presume the preconceived notion of important life skills.
To conclude, although there are several compelling arguments on both sides, I profoundly believe that the significance of dealing with money far outweigh its drawback. Not only do the advantages of school curriculum prove the school courses, but also pinpoint sufficient amount of money implications.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, apparently, but, hence, if, moreover, so, thus, well, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 10.5418719212 104% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 6.10837438424 98% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 8.36945812808 60% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 10.0 5.94088669951 168% => OK
Pronoun: 17.0 20.9802955665 81% => OK
Preposition: 33.0 31.9359605911 103% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 5.75862068966 174% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1546.0 1207.87684729 128% => OK
No of words: 262.0 242.827586207 108% => OK
Chars per words: 5.90076335878 5.00649968141 118% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.02323427807 3.92707691288 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.31886415419 2.71678728327 122% => OK
Unique words: 166.0 139.433497537 119% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.63358778626 0.580463131201 109% => OK
syllable_count: 486.9 379.143842365 128% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.9 1.57093596059 121% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.6157635468 87% => OK
Article: 0.0 1.56157635468 0% => 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: 12.0 12.6551724138 95% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 20.5024630542 102% => OK
Sentence length SD: 49.9124233032 50.4703680194 99% => OK
Chars per sentence: 128.833333333 104.977214359 123% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.8333333333 20.9669160288 104% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.83333333333 7.25397266985 80% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.12807881773 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.33497536946 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 6.9802955665 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 0.0 2.75862068966 0% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 2.91625615764 137% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.28317939336 0.242375264174 117% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0892398027523 0.0925447433944 96% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0248055560455 0.071462118173 35% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.153547970076 0.151781067708 101% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0238342094374 0.0609392437508 39% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.3 12.6369458128 137% => 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: 16.94 11.5310837438 147% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.64 8.32886699507 128% => OK
difficult_words: 99.0 55.0591133005 180% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.0 9.94827586207 151% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.3980295567 100% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 10.5123152709 143% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 72.0 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.