Throughout history, people tend to help each other in times of need in various ways, such as giving each other clothes and food, or lending money. While some people believe that contemporary humans do not help each other as they used to, others, however, stand on the other side of the continuum, asserting that people now are significantly more generous. As for my opinion, I subscribe to the latter idea. In the following paragraphs, I will delve into two of my most prominent reasons for advocating this viewpoint.
First and foremost, with the emergence of modern technology and the ever-increasing pace of its improvement, people gained access to more complex and sophisticated tools for production. As a result, people can produce goods easier and in a more convenient fashion and have access to a plethora of products and food. Therefore, they are more willing to give other individuals part of their possessions. In contrast, a long time ago, people did not even have enough food for themselves to eat, and most people were significantly poor. Thanks to technology, the global economy has considerably improved and people have a more gratifying life. An example can drive this notion home. When I was a kid, my grandfather used to tell me that when he was young, they had to fully dedicate their time and effort to their farm just to be able to merely satisfy their basic needs.
Furthermore, another equally compelling reason for corroborating my stance lies in the fact that contemporary humans are notably more cultured and educated. Nowadays, the majority of people have access to education and great books, and they are more inclined toward studying. Consequently, they have a sense of sympathy and compassion for other individuals in their society, and they try their best to save them from their misery. People are now cognizant of the fact that impoverished people are not responsible for their situation, and their society and social class is the culprit of such adversity. Current society glorifies forgiveness and helping the poor, and individuals, especially intellectuals, do what they can to be honored for such action. Contemporary ideologies do not value wealth or fame, instead, they value equality and justice. On the other hand, people in the past did not have access to any books or teachers, even if they did, it was not a well-developed education system. In fact, as the records show, in the last sixty years, people's level of education has doubled.
To put it all in a nutshell, having all the aforementioned reasons and examples into account, I significantly believe that contemporary human beings are considerably more generous, on the ground that they obtain more food and goods, as well as they are more educated and open-minded.
- Nowadays many high schools and universities require students to work on projects in groups and all members of the group receive the same grade mark on the project Do you agree or disagree that giving every member of a group the same grade is a good way to 63
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement Taking a lot of time to make an important decision is often viewed as a bad quality for a person to have but in fact it is a good quality for a person to have Use specific reasons and examples to suppo 73
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement Visiting museums is the best way to learn about a country 73
- When a new technological device becomes available some people buy it right away others wait until many have adopted it Which view do you agree with Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer 76
- TPO 63 Do you agree or disagree with the following statement Nowadays people are more willing to help people they don t know for example by giving clothing and food to people who need them than they were in the past Use specific reasons and examples to su 73
Transition Words or Phrases used:
consequently, first, furthermore, however, if, so, therefore, well, while, as for, in contrast, in fact, such as, as a result, as well as, on the other hand
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 : 9.0 11.0286738351 82% => OK
Pronoun: 44.0 43.0788530466 102% => OK
Preposition: 51.0 52.1666666667 98% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 8.0752688172 87% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2318.0 1977.66487455 117% => OK
No of words: 458.0 407.700716846 112% => OK
Chars per words: 5.06113537118 4.8611393121 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.62611441266 4.48103885553 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.90669008943 2.67179642975 109% => OK
Unique words: 241.0 212.727598566 113% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.526200873362 0.524837075471 100% => OK
syllable_count: 733.5 618.680645161 119% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.51630824373 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 9.59856630824 94% => OK
Article: 4.0 3.08781362007 130% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 3.51792114695 199% => OK
Conjunction: 6.0 1.86738351254 321% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 9.0 4.94265232975 182% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 20.6003584229 97% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 20.1344086022 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 54.4765086987 48.9658058833 111% => OK
Chars per sentence: 115.9 100.406767564 115% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.9 20.6045352989 111% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.8 5.45110844103 143% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.5376344086 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 11.8709677419 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 3.85842293907 78% => OK
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: 0.354366889909 0.236089414692 150% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.106491112409 0.076458572812 139% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.043806879392 0.0737576698707 59% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.218963560179 0.150856017488 145% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.037674092424 0.0645574589148 58% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.9 11.7677419355 118% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 58.1214874552 85% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.10430107527 144% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 10.1575268817 117% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.36 10.9000537634 113% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.69 8.01818996416 108% => OK
difficult_words: 115.0 86.8835125448 132% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.002688172 110% => 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: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.0 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.