People in the past are more interested in improving their neighborhood (the area where they live) than now
That people have a great tendency to improve the area where they reside is an axiom. However, this preference has changed over the time greatly due to various reasons. A question, which is a matter of debate, a controversial one, is whether people in the past were more avid in improving their neighborhood than today’s people. Although it is a little hard to reach a consensus on this issue, I am, to a great extent on the belief that people in the past took part in enhancing their neighborhood more than today’s generation. The following reasons would elaborate more on the thesis.
To commence, one of the compelling reasons that justifies the thesis is that rarely do today’s people have enough time to participate in such activities. To put it in general words, fulfilling extravagant cost of subsistence requires great deal of time which prevent them from participating in improving their neighborhoods. Simply stated, since life in the past was much more simple than today, past generation had abundant time to improving their surroundings. Going into the depth, today’s hectic life prevents people from concentrating on their surrounding environment even they are eager to enhance the quality of the area in which they reside. Needless to say that, the fact that people in the past should not have worked for long hours in a day provides them the chance to improve their neighborhoods. To shed more light on the issue, according to the result of the study posted in Time Magazine, findings of the ancient towns indicates that people in the past was more concerned about the outside design of their house than today’s people.
Alongside with the first reason elaborated above, the fundamental paradigm shift in the people’s interest in another point which requires meticulous attention. To clarify, the concerns and interests of the people have been altered over the periods of time. Broadly speaking, each time period has its own attractions; that being so, it is not farfetched that people’s interest has shifted over the time. To delineate, not having access to today’s technologies such as the Internet, people in the past gravitated toward other activities to have fun. On the contrary, as the age of information explosion has initiated, today’s people are detached from their surrounding since they expend most of their time with the high technologies. It is all transparent that, intrigued by assorted priorities of the specific time, people opt for the one in which they are more interested. However, what I mentioned above might not be overgeneralized to all contexts. Today, there are some people with artistic spirit which promotes them to make their surrounding beautiful. Nevertheless, they are more of an exception rather than a general rule.
Drawing upon the reasons, although there are always some exceptions which are excluded from the general rule, I do agree that people in the past were more enthusiastic to improve their neighborhoods. To recapitulate the reasons, not only did they have more free time to participate in these activities, but also improving their surrounding was among their interests unlike today.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, nevertheless, so, thus, broadly speaking, in general, such as, on the contrary, to a great extent
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 7.0 314% => Less to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 1.00243902439 299% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 2.0 6.8 29% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 19.0 3.15609756098 602% => Less relative clauses wanted (maybe 'which' is over used).
Pronoun: 45.0 5.60731707317 803% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 91.0 33.7804878049 269% => Less preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 11.0 3.97073170732 277% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2682.0 965.302439024 278% => Less number of characters wanted.
No of words: 514.0 196.424390244 262% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.21789883268 4.92477711251 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.76146701107 3.73543355544 127% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.98079364201 2.65546596893 112% => OK
Unique words: 250.0 106.607317073 235% => Less unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.486381322957 0.547539520022 89% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 832.5 283.868780488 293% => syllable counts are too long.
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.45097560976 110% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 1.53170731707 522% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 6.0 4.33902439024 138% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 1.07073170732 374% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 0.482926829268 207% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 12.0 3.36585365854 357% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 8.94146341463 246% => Too many sentences.
Sentence length: 23.0 22.4926829268 102% => OK
Sentence length SD: 48.7338869324 43.030603864 113% => OK
Chars per sentence: 121.909090909 112.824112599 108% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.3636363636 22.9334400587 102% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.81818181818 5.23603664747 111% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 3.83414634146 104% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 1.69756097561 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 16.0 3.70975609756 431% => Less positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 1.13902439024 88% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.09268292683 122% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.40077599061 0.215688989381 186% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.129585730454 0.103423049105 125% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0798634288544 0.0843802449381 95% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.288192709869 0.15604864568 185% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0547149536253 0.0819641961636 67% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.8 13.2329268293 112% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.13 61.2550243902 79% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.51609756098 135% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 10.3012195122 119% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.29 11.4140731707 116% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.68 8.06136585366 108% => OK
difficult_words: 127.0 40.7170731707 312% => Less difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 11.4329268293 92% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.9970731707 102% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.0658536585 99% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 67.4157303371 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 6.0 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.