With the advancement of modern technology, there has been substantial progress in inventing new electronic products. It is no doubt that more and more devices and computer programs are designed to help children learn more effectively. However, I believe that playing simpler toys and playing with friends are more advantageous for children development.
The development of children links to the performance of a child, especially in academic field. Nowadays, there are massive amounts of computer programs to assist students to learn more efficiently. These materials are brilliant resources to impart knowledge in a simple and effective way. However, ongoing research suggests that too much computer aid educational materials may harm children since it results in passive learning and lack of brainstorming skills. For example, during an online teaching program, a student just sits there and listen to the lecturer without any interaction let alone critical thinking, which is rather harmful to students because they don’t actually learn through thinking. In contrast, simpler toys such as LEGO help young individuals develop creativity. For example, when assembling the blocks together, children gradually learn basic knowledge of mathematics and science.
In addition to academic performance, strong physical and social ability also shapes the characteristic of a child. People are more and more sedentary today, as a result of this, obesity and other health-related issues emerged. Therefore, playing outside with friends can build up stronger body for children and prevent them from being obese. Recent research suggest that physical activities also stimulate children’s brain and help them to become more successful in the future. Furthermore, while playing with friends, children may develop social and communication skills such as: negotiating and avoiding conflicts. For example, children can learn how to share toys with each other and how to get along well with their partners. The experience leaned when playing with friend are indeed skills needed for the future.
Crime and violence are frequently depicted on television or the Internet and may have negative effects on children. Children who see violent acts are more likely to display aggressive or violent behavior and also to believe the world is a scary place. Ongoing studies have shown a lasting correlation between watching violence online and aggression. For example, video games such as Pikachu contains too many fight scenes, which is definitely a negative role model for children. As a result, immature players sometimes imitate violent and risky behaviors they see on television and end up in injuries, or even committing crimes.
In sum, I strongly believe that playing simpler toys and playing with friends are more beneficial to the children. They help students to have better academic performance, build up stronger bodies, and stay away from violence.
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Watching television is bad for children. Use specific details and examples to support your answer. 78
- To preserve old historic buildings vs to replace them with new modern buildings 76
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? The opinions of celebrities, such as famous entertainers and athletes, are more important to younger people than they are to older people. Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer. 73
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? It is more important to read or watch the news presented by people whose views are similar to your own than by people whose views are differentr 76
- Nowadays it is not important for people to have regularly family meals together 88
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...r bodies, and stay away from violence.
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, furthermore, however, may, so, therefore, well, while, for example, in addition, in contrast, no doubt, such as, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 15.1003584229 99% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 9.8082437276 51% => OK
Conjunction : 26.0 13.8261648746 188% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 11.0286738351 91% => OK
Pronoun: 17.0 43.0788530466 39% => OK
Preposition: 55.0 52.1666666667 105% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 8.0752688172 186% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2512.0 1977.66487455 127% => OK
No of words: 449.0 407.700716846 110% => OK
Chars per words: 5.59465478842 4.8611393121 115% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.60321845022 4.48103885553 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.84378840709 2.67179642975 106% => OK
Unique words: 248.0 212.727598566 117% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.552338530067 0.524837075471 105% => OK
syllable_count: 758.7 618.680645161 123% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.51630824373 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 9.59856630824 52% => OK
Article: 3.0 3.08781362007 97% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 3.51792114695 114% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.86738351254 107% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.94265232975 101% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 20.6003584229 117% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 20.1344086022 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 32.8074930042 48.9658058833 67% => OK
Chars per sentence: 104.666666667 100.406767564 104% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.7083333333 20.6045352989 91% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.83333333333 5.45110844103 107% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.53405017921 110% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.5376344086 18% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 11.8709677419 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 3.85842293907 233% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.88709677419 41% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.342558309129 0.236089414692 145% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0961044828443 0.076458572812 126% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.104038248665 0.0737576698707 141% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.195989315003 0.150856017488 130% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0565648266269 0.0645574589148 88% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.3 11.7677419355 122% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 44.75 58.1214874552 77% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.10430107527 144% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 10.1575268817 113% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.14 10.9000537634 139% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.42 8.01818996416 117% => OK
difficult_words: 139.0 86.8835125448 160% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 10.002688172 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.0537634409 92% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.247311828 88% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 90.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 27.0 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.