Some people believe that reading stories from a book is better than watching TV or playing computer games for children. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
It is widely believed that reading books brings more benefits for children than watching and playing games on technological devices. I strongly agree with this point of view.
First of all, it is obvious that by reading stories from different kinds of books, children can easily gain advantages which are essential for their behavior formation and development. Reading one book per day may help children to broaden their minds and improve their skills in order to prepare for their education and their navigation in the future. Therefore, just by reading habits, children can confidently gain great success in their lives without any problems related to the lack of knowledge or the shortage of skills. For example, a small child who has the habit of reading books daily may have a better life than others of the same age because he knows how to think and solve problems, which he gains from books.
Moreover, it can be seen that watching TV and playing games, on both phones and computers, results in many drawbacks for children. First, watching or playing games too long may lead to some diseases, such as obesity, less nutrition, and OCD, in children. Second, concentrating too much on technological devices may be the reason why children gradually stop caring for the real world. Sitting beyond high-intensity screens can make them lazy and have the tendency to be dependent on other people instead of doing themselves like doing household chores. They also cannot grow up normally as others.
In conclusion, it is true that reading books often can make children become better individuals than depending on technology as a habit.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-08-30 | ophongcute@gmail.com | 84 | view |
- The table gives the information about changes in modes of travel in England between 1985 and 2000 78
- The diagram below shows the process of making soft cheese Summarize the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant
- The bar chart below shows the amount of money invested in each category from five organizations 67
- The graph below gives information about the U S government spending on research between 1980 and 2008 73
- The diagram below shows the process of making soft cheese Summarize the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant 87
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, if, may, moreover, second, so, therefore, for example, in conclusion, such as, first of all, it is true
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 7.0 13.1623246493 53% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 7.85571142285 127% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 10.4138276553 106% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 7.30460921844 96% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 24.0651302605 87% => OK
Preposition: 34.0 41.998997996 81% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 8.3376753507 60% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1366.0 1615.20841683 85% => OK
No of words: 271.0 315.596192385 86% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.0405904059 5.12529762239 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.05734859645 4.20363070211 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.61905291823 2.80592935109 93% => OK
Unique words: 172.0 176.041082164 98% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.634686346863 0.561755894193 113% => OK
syllable_count: 398.7 506.74238477 79% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.60771543086 93% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 5.43587174349 110% => OK
Article: 1.0 2.52805611222 40% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.10420841683 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 0.809619238477 124% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.76152304609 63% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 16.0721442886 75% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 22.0 20.2975951904 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 47.3030272698 49.4020404114 96% => OK
Chars per sentence: 113.833333333 106.682146367 107% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.5833333333 20.7667163134 109% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.66666666667 7.06120827912 137% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.67935871743 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 0.0 3.9879759519 0% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 3.4128256513 59% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.339612707121 0.244688304435 139% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.11467893699 0.084324248473 136% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0832261064098 0.0667982634062 125% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.206975948332 0.151304729494 137% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0580890166652 0.056905535591 102% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.6 13.0946893788 104% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 57.61 50.2224549098 115% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 11.3001002004 95% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.25 12.4159519038 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.22 8.58950901804 96% => OK
difficult_words: 60.0 78.4519038076 76% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 9.78957915832 112% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.1190380762 107% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 10.7795591182 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 73.0337078652 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 6.5 Out of 9
---------------------
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.