Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? In order to solve the problem of the present and the future, it’s necessary to understand the past.
In the modern era, technology plays a prominent role in individuals’ lives. No century witnessed more progress in technology rather than the 20th century did. In this way, people encounter more problems in the present that they have not experienced before. A controversial question that arises is whether people should review the past for finding the solutions or we can make a better decision depend on the situation. In my opinion, to solve present and future problems, it is necessary to understand the past for the following reasons.
First of all, knowing about history reduces the possibility that people make the same mistakes again. Some mistakes may be unrecoverable in the past but could be avoided in the future. For example, the nuclear bomb “Little Boy” was detonated over Japan by the United States at the endpoint of the Second World War. The effects of the atomic bombings killed between four hundred thousand people in the country and large numbers of people who were civilians continued to die from the effects of burns and radiation. As a result, after the war, global countries constantly find a way to eliminate the use of nuclear weapons and prohibits assistance on nuclear development. That is to say, People learn a lesson and try to make it happen again in the future.
Second, to solve the problems we face in the present time, we can improve and advance the past results. That is to say, the scientists improve the researches from the last generation. For example, since the 20th century, several companies try to improve the vehicle which emits toxin pollution in the atmosphere. Thus, the first hybrid car was invented by the Toyota company in 2002, this event took a new generation of car production. In the next few years, Volvo, Benz, and the well-known brand, Tesla, all devoted themselves to the design of the electric car. Furthermore, the recycling ideas were also put on the car production. Therefore, all the parts of the vehicle are eco-friendly, this is because the experts always try to improve and enhance the normal tools that people used.
Finally, it is an indisputable fact that in the global world, everything will be changed admittedly. But we can learn from the past and try to find a better way to solve the problems. Some mistakes can be avoided while others might be improved. As a result, understanding the past fosters us to be strong and well prepared for the future.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2021-10-08 | Wei Huan Chueh | 83 | view |
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement In order to solve the problem of the present and the future it s necessary to understand the past 83
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement the best way to reduce air pollution is for the government to raise the cost of fuel 90
- In times of an economic crisis in which area should governments reduce its spending 1 Arts 2 Scientific research 3 Parks and public gardens 80
- In recent years many frog species around the world have declined in numbers or even gone extinct due to changes in their environment These population declines and extinctions have serious consequences for the ecosystems in which frogs live for example fro 80
- Brendan the Navigator was an Irish priest who lived in the 6th century He is most famous for embarking on a voyage in search of the mythical Island of the Blessed The details of Brendan s voyage recorded as stories in old manuscripts suggest to some that 83
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, furthermore, may, second, so, therefore, thus, well, while, for example, as a result, first of all, in my opinion, that is to say
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 15.1003584229 113% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 9.8082437276 92% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 13.8261648746 94% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 11.0286738351 82% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 43.0788530466 49% => OK
Preposition: 59.0 52.1666666667 113% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 8.0752688172 149% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2026.0 1977.66487455 102% => OK
No of words: 412.0 407.700716846 101% => OK
Chars per words: 4.91747572816 4.8611393121 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.50530610838 4.48103885553 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.69342244373 2.67179642975 101% => OK
Unique words: 222.0 212.727598566 104% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.538834951456 0.524837075471 103% => OK
syllable_count: 627.3 618.680645161 101% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.51630824373 99% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 9.59856630824 73% => OK
Article: 6.0 3.08781362007 194% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 3.51792114695 114% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.86738351254 107% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 4.94265232975 162% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 20.6003584229 107% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 20.1344086022 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 34.0843630079 48.9658058833 70% => OK
Chars per sentence: 92.0909090909 100.406767564 92% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.7272727273 20.6045352989 91% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.09090909091 5.45110844103 130% => 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 : 8.0 3.85842293907 207% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.88709677419 82% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.122946252072 0.236089414692 52% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0381677107012 0.076458572812 50% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0808799094171 0.0737576698707 110% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0803370079144 0.150856017488 53% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0647920134092 0.0645574589148 100% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.1 11.7677419355 94% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 61.67 58.1214874552 106% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.10430107527 51% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 10.1575268817 90% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.26 10.9000537634 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.44 8.01818996416 105% => OK
difficult_words: 102.0 86.8835125448 117% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 10.002688172 85% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.0537634409 92% => 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: 83.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 25.0 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.