Can brain damage from drugs be reversed?
There is a controversial issue about the side effects of taking drugs on humans. Some pharmaceutical companies claim that drugs are harmless to the brain, while some doctors state that they irreversibly destroy it. In this essay, I will discuss both points of view and agree with the idea of harmful impact.
Let us start with the reasons why some pharmaceutical companies argue that drugs hardly damage brain. The first reason is that all harmful repercussions are revealed on initial stages of medicine development. Drug developers spend years investigating the influence of new drugs on living creatures before sending to mass production, so that they make sure that these medications trigger no unpleasant reactions in the body. Another reason is that there are many other drugs designed to recover any damage. Many people take a course of drugs intended to generate brain cells as a therapy. As a result, they avoid any detrimental effects, which drugs may induce.
However, some doctors believe that drugs are responsible for many brain disorders. They justify their point of view with the following arguments. Firstly, many drugs create an environment for more serious brain infections. Many patients develop illnesses, which impede brain processes, two or three years after they complete taking certain medicines. This link between them is difficult to establish due to a large time span. Secondly, many sufferers use drugs without prescriptions. As a great deal of people try to treat themselves at home, they usually take enormous doses, which aggravate the situation. Therefore, they not only harm their immune system, but also irreparably slow their mental capacities.
In conclusion, even though some pharmaceutical manufactures say that any pharmacy they produce is not dangerous to human brain, I think that drugs damage it, but it is rarely possible to prove.
- Should the government provide people with free accommodation? 78
- These days in many countries fewer and fewer people want to become teachers particularly in secondary schools What are the reasons for this and how could the problem be solved 73
- The younger generation is mainly responsible for latest technological developments How far do you agree 84
- Sports stars are paid too much for what they do Discuss 92
- It is inevitable that as technology advances traditional cultures will be lost It seems that we cannot have these two things together To what extent do you agree or disagree 89
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, therefore, while, i think, in conclusion, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 13.1623246493 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 7.85571142285 25% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 10.4138276553 38% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 13.0 7.30460921844 178% => OK
Pronoun: 32.0 24.0651302605 133% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 32.0 41.998997996 76% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 8.3376753507 60% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1587.0 1615.20841683 98% => OK
No of words: 298.0 315.596192385 94% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.3255033557 5.12529762239 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.15483772266 4.20363070211 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.80983115495 2.80592935109 100% => OK
Unique words: 191.0 176.041082164 108% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.640939597315 0.561755894193 114% => OK
syllable_count: 488.7 506.74238477 96% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.60771543086 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 5.43587174349 129% => OK
Article: 1.0 2.52805611222 40% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.10420841683 238% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 0.809619238477 247% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 2.0 4.76152304609 42% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 16.0721442886 112% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 20.2975951904 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 41.2990075509 49.4020404114 84% => OK
Chars per sentence: 88.1666666667 106.682146367 83% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.5555555556 20.7667163134 80% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.66666666667 7.06120827912 94% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.67935871743 58% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 3.9879759519 276% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 3.4128256513 59% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.205546237751 0.244688304435 84% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0693715954979 0.084324248473 82% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0589006174611 0.0667982634062 88% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.137314146765 0.151304729494 91% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0359280361328 0.056905535591 63% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.0 13.0946893788 92% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 55.24 50.2224549098 110% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.44779559118 42% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 11.3001002004 84% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.34 12.4159519038 107% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.67 8.58950901804 101% => OK
difficult_words: 80.0 78.4519038076 102% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 9.78957915832 87% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 10.1190380762 83% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.7795591182 83% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 84.2696629213 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.5 Out of 9
---------------------
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.