Young people today are more likely to give time and effort to improve the world than young people were in the past.
Young people, the vital underpinning of the development of our world, have been in the limelight recently and provokes a heated discussion centering on whether the young today give more time and effort to improve the world than the young in the past. In many people's opinions, young people nowadays care less about improving the world because they are busier and more selfish than young people in the past. Contrary to their ideas is my perspective that young people today are more likely to give time and effort to improve the world than young people were in the past. I feel this way for two reasons, which I will explain further in the following part.
What must be prioritized is that young people in today's world have more access to high-quality education so they are able to put time and efforts in studying technology, which can improve the world. In detail, young people, regardless of their family financial background, can be educated due to the government's grants and support. Take my friend Jam as an example. She successfully found a special gene, which could double the yield of corns, during her master degree. This type of corns has been grown widely in Henan, a region with a huge amount of population in China, and solved the problem of famine in that region to a large extent. However, many talent young people in the past had no access to education so they were unable to know specific method to improve the world. Therefore, I believe that young people today are more likely to give time and effort to improve the world than young people were in the past.
What is equally important is that the environment nowadays has much negative impact on young people so they are more desirable to improve their world. To be more specific, the environment surrounding today's young people is more severe than in the past because many basic elements, such as air and water, are polluted, which brings to abundant health problems. In order to reduce pollution, young people are more willing to give their time and effort to improve the world they live in. The story of my town is a good case in point. Last year, half of the people, including my friends, in my town suffered from stomachache because a factory released some toxic chemicals into the river where dwellers got their drinking water. After I knew this, I was extremely angry so I took efforts in conducting several surveys as well as writing several reports to the local government. Finally, the factory was fined and forced to close, which brought me a sense of achievement since I improve the world I live in. Thus, I reckon that young people today are more likely to give time and effort to improve the world than young people were in the past.
In conclusion, I strongly believe that young people today are more likely to give time and effort to improve the world than young people were in the past, not only because today's young people are more well-educated but also because their environment is negatively influenced more.
Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
---|---|---|---|
2022-03-23 | xinxindiandeng | 70 | view |
- A friend who is intelligent is much better than a friend with a good sense of humor 73
- Do you agree or disagree with the statement competition with friends usually has negative effects on friendships 70
- Do you agree or disagree with the statement competition with friends usually has negative effects on friendships 70
- Young people today are more likely to give time and effort to improve the world than young people were in the past 70
- Do you agree or disagree it is a waste of money for a government to fund space travel 76
Comments
Essay evaluations by e-grader
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, however, if, so, therefore, thus, well, i feel, i reckon, in conclusion, such as, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 29.0 15.1003584229 192% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 9.8082437276 51% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 13.8261648746 101% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 11.0286738351 118% => OK
Pronoun: 40.0 43.0788530466 93% => OK
Preposition: 76.0 52.1666666667 146% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 8.0752688172 124% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2485.0 1977.66487455 126% => OK
No of words: 523.0 407.700716846 128% => OK
Chars per words: 4.75143403442 4.8611393121 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.78217453174 4.48103885553 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.40754292155 2.67179642975 90% => OK
Unique words: 229.0 212.727598566 108% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.437858508604 0.524837075471 83% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 785.7 618.680645161 127% => 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: 5.0 3.08781362007 162% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 3.51792114695 28% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.86738351254 54% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 4.94265232975 162% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 20.6003584229 97% => OK
Sentence length: 26.0 20.1344086022 129% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 58.3674566861 48.9658058833 119% => OK
Chars per sentence: 124.25 100.406767564 124% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.15 20.6045352989 127% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.6 5.45110844103 103% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.5376344086 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 15.0 11.8709677419 126% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 3.85842293907 104% => OK
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: 0.768641463998 0.236089414692 326% => The coherence between essay topic and essay body is overfitting.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.300108721343 0.076458572812 393% => Sentence topic similarity is high.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.315077016873 0.0737576698707 427% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.636509763121 0.150856017488 422% => Maybe some contents are duplicated.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.104802155203 0.0645574589148 162% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.0 11.7677419355 119% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 53.55 58.1214874552 92% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.10430107527 51% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 10.1575268817 121% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.57 10.9000537634 97% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.82 8.01818996416 98% => OK
difficult_words: 96.0 86.8835125448 110% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 17.5 10.002688172 175% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 10.0537634409 123% => OK
text_standard: 18.0 10.247311828 176% => 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: 70.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 21.0 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.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, however, if, so, therefore, thus, well, i feel, i reckon, in conclusion, such as, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 29.0 15.1003584229 192% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 9.8082437276 51% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 13.8261648746 101% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 11.0286738351 118% => OK
Pronoun: 40.0 43.0788530466 93% => OK
Preposition: 76.0 52.1666666667 146% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 8.0752688172 124% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2485.0 1977.66487455 126% => OK
No of words: 523.0 407.700716846 128% => OK
Chars per words: 4.75143403442 4.8611393121 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.78217453174 4.48103885553 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.40754292155 2.67179642975 90% => OK
Unique words: 229.0 212.727598566 108% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.437858508604 0.524837075471 83% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 785.7 618.680645161 127% => 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: 5.0 3.08781362007 162% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 3.51792114695 28% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.86738351254 54% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 4.94265232975 162% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 20.6003584229 97% => OK
Sentence length: 26.0 20.1344086022 129% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 58.3674566861 48.9658058833 119% => OK
Chars per sentence: 124.25 100.406767564 124% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.15 20.6045352989 127% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.6 5.45110844103 103% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.5376344086 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 15.0 11.8709677419 126% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 3.85842293907 104% => OK
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: 0.768641463998 0.236089414692 326% => The coherence between essay topic and essay body is overfitting.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.300108721343 0.076458572812 393% => Sentence topic similarity is high.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.315077016873 0.0737576698707 427% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.636509763121 0.150856017488 422% => Maybe some contents are duplicated.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.104802155203 0.0645574589148 162% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.0 11.7677419355 119% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 53.55 58.1214874552 92% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.10430107527 51% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 10.1575268817 121% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.57 10.9000537634 97% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.82 8.01818996416 98% => OK
difficult_words: 96.0 86.8835125448 110% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 17.5 10.002688172 175% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 10.0537634409 123% => OK
text_standard: 18.0 10.247311828 176% => 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: 70.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 21.0 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.