It is believed that pleasure reading is a better way to improve imagination and linguistic skills than watching TV. I agree with this idea for some reasons.
Of course, reading for pleasure brings benefits to the readers. As a language teacher, I have seen students read a text in both their native and foreign languages and have questions about the vocabulary, sentence structure or grammar use. This has helped them better understand of grammatical and lexical usage, especially in reading and writing. Also, when reading, the readers have to use their creativeness to comprehend the concept and the context delivered in the book. For example, children reading fiction may need to visualise the event, therefore improving their imaginative thinking.
Similarly, watching TV can enhance imagination and language ability. Viewers can improve their listening and speaking skills as they can listen to the sound of the word and how it is used in spoken context with vivid images to illustrate the exact meaning. In terms of imagination, many channels such as tourism or news inform viewers and help them imagine the world around. Otherwise, those who want to improve their thinking and imaginative skills can watch many educational programmes as quiz shows.
However, the reason why TV is not a good choice for learning such skills lies on the fact that it is more difficult to keep our attention on learning when watching TV than reading. Televisions focus on increasing ratings for the higher profit from advertising so that they often catch viewers’ attention on commercial or entertaining channels rather than educational ones.
In conclusion, although watching TV can improve language capabilities and imagination power for an individual, I think that reading is better and more effective than watching TV.
It is believed that pleasure reading is a better way to improve imagination and linguistic skills than watching TV. I agree with this idea for some reasons.
Of course, reading for pleasure brings benefits to the readers. As a language teacher, I have seen students read a text in both their native and foreign languages and have questions about the vocabulary, sentence structure or grammar use. This has helped them better understand of grammatical and lexical usage, especially in reading and writing. Also, when reading, the readers have to use their creativeness to comprehend the concept and the context delivered in the book. For example, children reading fiction may need to visualise the event, therefore improving their imaginative thinking.
Similarly, watching TV can enhance imagination and language ability. Viewers can improve their listening and speaking skills as they can listen to the sound of the word and how it is used in spoken context with vivid images to illustrate the exact meaning. In terms of imagination, many channels such as tourism or news inform viewers and help them imagine the world around. Otherwise, those who want to improve their thinking and imaginative skills can watch many educational programmes as quiz shows.
However, the reason why TV is not a good choice for learning such skills lies on the fact that it is more difficult to keep our attention on learning when watching TV than reading. Televisions focus on increasing ratings for the higher profit from advertising so that they often catch viewers’ attention on commercial or entertaining channels rather than educational ones.
In conclusion, although watching TV can improve language capabilities and imagination power for an individual, I think that reading is better and more effective than watching TV.
- The idea that whether diligence and persistence or material wealth and physical appearance are more significant remains a source of controversy While all these are necessary I believe that key factors for success in life are hard working and determined On 61
- It is said that raising the cost of air tickets would reduce the number of people traveling by planes because of damaging issues for the environment While I partly agree with this tendency I strongly believe that other measures would be more effective On 61
- It is believed that pleasure reading is a better way to improve imagination and linguistic skills than watching TV I agree with this idea for some reasons Of course reading for pleasure brings benefits to the readers As a language teacher I have seen stud 61
- The bar charts compare how many people in urban and rural areas were affected by noise pollution from four sources during daytime and nightime in 2007 Overall it is clear that more people in cities experienced all types of noise pollution compared with ru 67
- The bar chart illustrates the percentage of the urban population in 3 continents and the whole world over the period between 1950 and 2000 and including the prediction to 2030 Overall it is evident that the population of Latin America was always highest c 73
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 556, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...y need to visualise the event, therefore improving their imaginative thinking. ...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, however, if, may, similarly, so, therefore, as to, for example, i think, in conclusion, of course, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 6.0 13.1623246493 46% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 7.85571142285 89% => OK
Conjunction : 16.0 10.4138276553 154% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 7.30460921844 96% => OK
Pronoun: 23.0 24.0651302605 96% => OK
Preposition: 28.0 41.998997996 67% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 8.3376753507 108% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1535.0 1615.20841683 95% => OK
No of words: 289.0 315.596192385 92% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.31141868512 5.12529762239 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.12310562562 4.20363070211 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.81926878487 2.80592935109 100% => OK
Unique words: 167.0 176.041082164 95% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.57785467128 0.561755894193 103% => OK
syllable_count: 464.4 506.74238477 92% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.60771543086 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 5.43587174349 110% => OK
Article: 2.0 2.52805611222 79% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.10420841683 143% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.76152304609 63% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 16.0721442886 87% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 20.2975951904 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 47.3651146059 49.4020404114 96% => OK
Chars per sentence: 109.642857143 106.682146367 103% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.6428571429 20.7667163134 99% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.0 7.06120827912 113% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.38176352705 114% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 8.67935871743 150% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 3.9879759519 25% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 3.4128256513 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.503546933781 0.244688304435 206% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.176922674318 0.084324248473 210% => Sentence topic similarity is high.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.140682847105 0.0667982634062 211% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.312025973176 0.151304729494 206% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.204228831719 0.056905535591 359% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.9 13.0946893788 106% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 50.2224549098 102% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 11.3001002004 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.52 12.4159519038 109% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.0 8.58950901804 105% => OK
difficult_words: 80.0 78.4519038076 102% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 9.78957915832 87% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.1190380762 99% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.7795591182 83% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 61.797752809 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.5 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.