There are undoubtedly many possible factors that can influence the quality of education, such as the number of teachers, preschool education, additional training for teachers, and so on. However, I could hardly agree more with the statement that the government should fund additional training for current teachers instead of implementing other programs. The fundamental and deeper discussions are illustrated as follows.
Providing additional training for teachers can be beneficial for students since the former would be able to improve their teaching methods. Specifically, if teachers have unique teaching styles, it will draw students’ attention and greatly boost students' learning enthusiasm. Consequently, students would become more willing to spend time in studying and researching various kinds of information related to their favorite subjects, hence having a deep and comprehensive understanding of knowledge. What’s more, supposing that professors teach students in a more professional and systematic way, the additional training would enhance students' study efficiency which in turn can contribute to mastering their professional knowledge. Consequently, students are more likely to achieve their optimum learning potential if additional training is provided for teachers. Hence, there is every reason to believe that teachers' extra training should receive more investments from the government to enhance the quality of education.
It is also impractical to improve the quality of instruction by hiring more teachers or providing more preschool education. For one thing, it is not cost-effective to hire more teachers since their combined salaries would be much higher. The increasing number of teachers might also lead to the decrease in the quality of teaching since no sufficient training could be provided for them. Therefore, the quality of education would be unable to achieve an improvement in this way. Additionally, preschool education can be a burden for students and may even lead to negative impacts on the quality of education. Students' learning ability tends to decline if they attend preschool study since they are so busy with classes that they might lose their interests in learning. As a result, it is possible that they would be unable to develop the awareness for active learning, which could not be beneficial for long-term study.
To sum up, we may safely conclude that investing on additional training for teachers is a rather wise decision for the government compared to the other choices. This is because it can help improve students' learning enthusiasm, which can further enhance their quality of learning.
- The government wants to fund one of the following areas to improve children s education Which one do you think is better Why hire more teachers to teach in a small class make preschool education before kindergarten mandatory provide some training courses 91
- Technology designed to make people’s lives simpler makes people’s lives more complicated. 76
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?Government should focus its budgets more on environmental protection than on economy.Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer. 73
- The government wants to fund one of the following areas to improve children's education. Which one do you think is better? Why?- hire more teachers to teach in a small class- make preschool education before kindergarten mandatory- provide some training co 73
- TPO 33: CARVED STONE BALLS 71
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, consequently, hence, however, if, may, so, therefore, thus, such as, as a result, for one thing, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 15.1003584229 126% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 22.0 9.8082437276 224% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 8.0 13.8261648746 58% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 10.0 11.0286738351 91% => OK
Pronoun: 28.0 43.0788530466 65% => OK
Preposition: 46.0 52.1666666667 88% => OK
Nominalization: 19.0 8.0752688172 235% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2265.0 1977.66487455 115% => OK
No of words: 401.0 407.700716846 98% => OK
Chars per words: 5.64837905237 4.8611393121 116% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.47492842339 4.48103885553 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.01247914979 2.67179642975 113% => OK
Unique words: 193.0 212.727598566 91% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.481296758105 0.524837075471 92% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 692.1 618.680645161 112% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.51630824373 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 9.59856630824 73% => OK
Article: 4.0 3.08781362007 130% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.51792114695 57% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.86738351254 54% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.94265232975 20% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 20.6003584229 87% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 20.1344086022 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 40.1054166472 48.9658058833 82% => OK
Chars per sentence: 125.833333333 100.406767564 125% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.2777777778 20.6045352989 108% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.5 5.45110844103 119% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.5376344086 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 11.8709677419 101% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 3.85842293907 52% => More 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: 0.198946926151 0.236089414692 84% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0773533204249 0.076458572812 101% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0522666599769 0.0737576698707 71% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.125532108992 0.150856017488 83% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0337580519587 0.0645574589148 52% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.3 11.7677419355 139% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 40.69 58.1214874552 70% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 6.10430107527 183% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.1 10.1575268817 129% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.79 10.9000537634 145% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.59 8.01818996416 107% => OK
difficult_words: 98.0 86.8835125448 113% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.5 10.002688172 125% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.0537634409 107% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 10.247311828 107% => 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: 73.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.0 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.