Women have formed the minority in the workforce of a country’s police force or military one for years. On the one hand, many people feel that their roles should be regarded as the same as that of men. However, others feel these sorts of jobs do not appropriate for women. The merits of both arguments will be analyzed before a conclusion is decided upon.
Firstly, some argue women are not suitable for working in police stations or military sites. For example, women show less favourable physical strength than men, thereby reducing the prospect of women getting involved in these jobs, which demand a huge amount of physical activity. As a result of maternity leave, women tend to interrupt their work, making them less completely focused on their tasks in disciplined workplaces. Although there might be some difficulties, women do not let it stop them from representing their roles in this environment. Thus, the merits of this opinion are hard to support.
However, many other people believe that women should play an equal role as men in these forces. To illustrate, in history, women were appointed to many important positions. As an example, in Vietnam history, two heroes named “Hai Ba Trung” are the main lead of the fight against the invaded enemies. These two women’s names were prominent for their bold and leadership ability. There is no doubt about the leadership of women compared to those of men. Moreover, some roles with no physical strength needed would be appropriate to females such as the army logistics force or the investigation department. Thus, the heightened benefits of this opinion regarding the role of museums can clearly be seen.
After looking at these two opposing points of view, it is felt that women should contribute equally to the national police force or the army force. Thus, it is hoped that women could freely join these forces without being judged in terms of either their leadership or physical health in the future.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, firstly, however, if, look, moreover, regarding, so, thus, for example, no doubt, such as, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 13.1623246493 114% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 7.85571142285 102% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 10.4138276553 58% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 6.0 7.30460921844 82% => OK
Pronoun: 26.0 24.0651302605 108% => OK
Preposition: 44.0 41.998997996 105% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 8.3376753507 36% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1645.0 1615.20841683 102% => OK
No of words: 329.0 315.596192385 104% => OK
Chars per words: 5.0 5.12529762239 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.25891501996 4.20363070211 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.55033854211 2.80592935109 91% => OK
Unique words: 185.0 176.041082164 105% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.562310030395 0.561755894193 100% => OK
syllable_count: 517.5 506.74238477 102% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.60771543086 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 5.43587174349 55% => OK
Article: 3.0 2.52805611222 119% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.10420841683 190% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.76152304609 105% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 16.0721442886 112% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 20.2975951904 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 35.2703841771 49.4020404114 71% => OK
Chars per sentence: 91.3888888889 106.682146367 86% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.2777777778 20.7667163134 88% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.33333333333 7.06120827912 90% => 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 : 4.0 3.9879759519 100% => OK
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: 0.396541297584 0.244688304435 162% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.125088104194 0.084324248473 148% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0984229138848 0.0667982634062 147% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.234899179262 0.151304729494 155% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0487361184981 0.056905535591 86% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.3 13.0946893788 86% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 50.2224549098 106% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.44779559118 42% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 11.3001002004 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.72 12.4159519038 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.56 8.58950901804 100% => OK
difficult_words: 84.0 78.4519038076 107% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 9.78957915832 82% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.1190380762 91% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 10.7795591182 111% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 84.2696629213 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.5 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.