Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? The ability to maintain friendships with a small number of people over a long period of time is more important for happiness than the ability to make many new friends easily. Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer.
In recent years, the whole world has been changing astronomically at the speed of light with the advent of novel ideas and state-of-the-art technologies. Hence, the vivid contrast between the role of intimate friends and strangers has become more visible. When it comes to my stance, by weighing up the pros and cons, as people say "old friends and old wine and old gold are best", I completely hold that lasting friendship brings about mutual understanding and trust which are obviously important to people that I will elaborate on the following by giving two main rationales.
First and foremost, the prime reason why I am of such a belief is that being friends for a long time makes the relationships even stronger than a family because loyalty only can be built as time passes within people who have known each other, which is why old friends have affected our characters and subsequently making decisions. What I mean is that close friends are ones who provide us with a sense of belonging and confident. Ergo, more times we tell them our secrets, concerns and whatever we could not tell anyone even our parents.
By the same token, apart from the fact that making a lasting friendship is not as simple as passing ones but in terms of sociability, building a deep companion shows the level of how you are a competent person. According to official statistics about having a sense of happiness, some people who can strike up a trustworthy friendship feel a great sense of satisfaction about their life. A simple example which will suffice to illustrate this manner is that if somebody does not have the ability to maintain friendships for a long time with a few people that person would face the serious challenge in the critical situations, which is why no one can deny the pivotal role of them in the process of overcoming heavy problems. In other words, these friends are ones that we can rely on them unconditionally.
In conclusion, according to the aforementioned reasons, I totally concur with the initial statement and as an optimistic person believe that It is better to be in chains with friends than to be in a garden with strangers. To sum up, having discussed the rationales, I am of the opinion that having friendships which are kept for a long time even a few ones are much more profitable and valuable vis-à-vis temporary relationships.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-06-03 | sonyeoso | 80 | view |
| 2023-04-10 | KimiaKermanshahian | 76 | view |
| 2023-03-15 | MichelleGAOOO | 70 | view |
| 2022-12-14 | HSNDEK | 73 | view |
| 2022-11-24 | AT2G38040 | 70 | view |
- TPO 33, Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?When teachers assign projects on which students must work together, the students learn much more effectively than when they are asked to work alone on projects. 76
- o You Agree Or Disagree With The Following Statement? Dancing Plays An Important Role In A Culture. Use Specific Reasons And Examples To Support Your Answer 80
- tpo33 3
- Some people like to travel with a companion. Other people prefer to travel alone. Which do you prefer? Use specific reasons and examples to support your choice. 83
- Essay topics: TPO45Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?In the past, young people depended too much on their parents to make decisions for them; today young people are better able to make decisions about their own lives. Use specific reas 88
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, hence, if, so, apart from, i mean, in conclusion, in other words, to sum up, by the same token
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 15.1003584229 126% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 9.8082437276 82% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 13.8261648746 94% => OK
Relative clauses : 19.0 11.0286738351 172% => OK
Pronoun: 33.0 43.0788530466 77% => OK
Preposition: 51.0 52.1666666667 98% => OK
Nominalization: 2.0 8.0752688172 25% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1976.0 1977.66487455 100% => OK
No of words: 406.0 407.700716846 100% => OK
Chars per words: 4.86699507389 4.8611393121 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.48881294772 4.48103885553 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.87045057786 2.67179642975 107% => OK
Unique words: 224.0 212.727598566 105% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.551724137931 0.524837075471 105% => OK
syllable_count: 608.4 618.680645161 98% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.51630824373 99% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 9.59856630824 42% => OK
Article: 4.0 3.08781362007 130% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.51792114695 57% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.86738351254 0% => OK
Preposition: 9.0 4.94265232975 182% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 20.6003584229 58% => 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: 33.0 20.1344086022 164% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 91.1006769093 48.9658058833 186% => OK
Chars per sentence: 164.666666667 100.406767564 164% => OK
Words per sentence: 33.8333333333 20.6045352989 164% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.83333333333 5.45110844103 162% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.5376344086 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 11.8709677419 84% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 3.85842293907 26% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.88709677419 20% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.24787534151 0.236089414692 105% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0789092574531 0.076458572812 103% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0452796208539 0.0737576698707 61% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.145706448586 0.150856017488 97% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0263367329907 0.0645574589148 41% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 18.4 11.7677419355 156% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 46.44 58.1214874552 80% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.10430107527 144% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.0 10.1575268817 148% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.56 10.9000537634 106% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.97 8.01818996416 112% => OK
difficult_words: 95.0 86.8835125448 109% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 10.002688172 140% => OK
gunning_fog: 15.2 10.0537634409 151% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.247311828 88% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Better to have 5 paragraphs with 3 arguments. And try always support/against one side but compare two sides, like this:
para 1: introduction
para 2: reason 1. address both of the views presented for reason 1
para 3: reason 2. address both of the views presented for reason 2
para 4: reason 3. address both of the views presented for reason 3
para 5: conclusion.
So how to find out those reasons. There is a formula:
reasons == advantages or
reasons == disadvantages
for example, we can always apply 'save time', 'save/make money', 'find a job', 'make friends', 'get more information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.
or we can apply 'waste time', 'waste money', 'no job', 'make bad friends', 'get bad information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.
Rates: 76.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.0 Out of 30
---------------------
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.