More and more young people from wealthy countries are spending a short time in
communities in poorer countries doing unpaid work such as teaching or building houses.
Why? Who benefit from this, the community or these young people?
It is true that a growing number of young people from affluent countries are doing temporary jobs
without payment in less wealthy countries. Reasons for this vary, and I believe that both these
young individuals and the community reap the benefits.
There are several reasons why the youth in rich nations tend to do unpaid work in less affluent
countries. Chief among them is the growth of the aviation industry. The emergence of low-cost
airlines allows young individuals who are on a tight budget to travel to remote corners of the
world. For example, having a voluntary foreign English teacher in Sapa, a mountainous area in
Vietnam, used to be far-fetched several decades ago, but cheap carriers such as Tiger Airlines
and Jetstar Airlines have made it happen. Another reason is the spread of information. The
development of technology has brought images and the living condition of poor communities to
the richer world, which creates an urge for the young to take action. Many graduates decide to
take a year out to help the inhabitants of poverty-stricken countries partly because of the
television programs and the news they watch and read.
Doing unpaid jobs pays dividends for both young volunteers and the community. On the one
hand, young people can experience the life of indigenous people, gain hands-on experience and
enjoy the breathtaking view of the places where they work. They may then come back to their
normal life and decide on the career path that they want to pursue. On the other hand, people in
poor countries might benefit from the work of young citizens from rich nations. Knowledge
received can have lasting effects on the locals’ future, while housing built will provide a better
living condition than before.
In conclusion, various factors contribute to the influx of young volunteers to poor communities.
Personally, I believe that this is beneficial to both these young people and the community as a
whole
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2018-12-07 | Gurpreet_5577 | 61 | view |
| 2018-09-12 | hoaingoc88 | 73 | view |
| 2017-07-04 | tuan anh nguyen | 78 | view |
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, if, may, so, then, while, for example, in conclusion, such as, it is true, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 13.1623246493 61% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 7.85571142285 64% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 10.4138276553 106% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 7.30460921844 96% => OK
Pronoun: 18.0 24.0651302605 75% => OK
Preposition: 46.0 41.998997996 110% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 8.3376753507 108% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1665.0 1615.20841683 103% => OK
No of words: 322.0 315.596192385 102% => OK
Chars per words: 5.17080745342 5.12529762239 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.23607819155 4.20363070211 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.69034633966 2.80592935109 96% => OK
Unique words: 185.0 176.041082164 105% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.574534161491 0.561755894193 102% => OK
syllable_count: 492.3 506.74238477 97% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.60771543086 93% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 5.43587174349 55% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.384769539078 0% => OK
Article: 4.0 2.52805611222 158% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.10420841683 48% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 0.809619238477 371% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 4.76152304609 84% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 16.0721442886 100% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 20.2975951904 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 45.1261686137 49.4020404114 91% => OK
Chars per sentence: 104.0625 106.682146367 98% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.125 20.7667163134 97% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.0625 7.06120827912 86% => OK
Paragraphs: 22.0 4.38176352705 502% => Less paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.67935871743 127% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 3.9879759519 25% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 3.4128256513 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.30523798771 0.244688304435 125% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0929744868337 0.084324248473 110% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0955977698431 0.0667982634062 143% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.076285486997 0.151304729494 50% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0855614177086 0.056905535591 150% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.0 13.0946893788 99% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 59.64 50.2224549098 119% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.3001002004 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.71 12.4159519038 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.85 8.58950901804 103% => OK
difficult_words: 86.0 78.4519038076 110% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 9.78957915832 82% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.1190380762 99% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 10.7795591182 93% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Maximum five paragraphs wanted.
Rates: 78.6516853933 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.0 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.