Do you support dangerous activities like extreme skiing, skydiving, bungee jumping or not? What are the reasons for that?
Recently, hazardous sports have sparked an ongoing controversy, which inevitably leads to a moot question, “is it advantageous or not?” Whereas it is a widely held view that excitement sports are highly beneficial, I will discuss controversial aspects of that throughout this essay.
From the physiology standpoint, professional developments are bound up inextricably with risk policies, which indicates they lead to both lure of money and excitement. As a well-known example, a longitudinal study conducted by eminent scientists in 2010 demonstrates the relationship between dangerous activities and human instincts as well as an exponential increase in amazing achievements. Their academic criticism was impressive. Consequently, my empirical evidence presented thus far support the contention that the likelihood of occurring hard tissue injuries is correlated positively with not only irreversible changes but also adverse outcomes.
within the realm of social science, without the slightest doubt, efficient training systems attribute alternative hypotheses, in that it would come down to governmental interventions, practical implications, sports institutions. A salient example of such attribution is young people, which is a cause for concern since it was mistaken to take recklessness behavior for granted. Had there been a paradigm shift earlier, scholars might have had the opportunity to pinpoint mental problems. Likewise, hardly had they confine their attention to fear, suffering, and even enthusiasm. Hence, it is reasonable to infer the pivotal role of systematic changes.
To conclude, as for myself, as the saying goes “all’s well that ends well,” after analyzing what elaborated above, I highly agree that supporting dangerous sports are of high importance. However, we perceive that with the benefit of hindsight, the more we research, the further we discover.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 2, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Within
... changes but also adverse outcomes. within the realm of social science, without th...
^^^^^^
Line 7, column 85, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma
Suggestion: , &apos
...oes 'all's well that ends well,' after analyzing what elaborated above,...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, consequently, hence, however, if, likewise, so, thus, well, whereas, as for, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 10.5418719212 114% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 6.10837438424 49% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 8.36945812808 60% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 10.0 5.94088669951 168% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 20.9802955665 114% => OK
Preposition: 33.0 31.9359605911 103% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 5.75862068966 156% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1645.0 1207.87684729 136% => OK
No of words: 276.0 242.827586207 114% => OK
Chars per words: 5.96014492754 5.00649968141 119% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.07593519647 3.92707691288 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.33903104723 2.71678728327 123% => OK
Unique words: 199.0 139.433497537 143% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.721014492754 0.580463131201 124% => OK
syllable_count: 500.4 379.143842365 132% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.57093596059 115% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.6157635468 130% => OK
Article: 4.0 1.56157635468 256% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 4.0 1.71428571429 233% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 0.931034482759 107% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 3.65517241379 164% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 12.6551724138 95% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 20.5024630542 112% => OK
Sentence length SD: 73.1497702586 50.4703680194 145% => OK
Chars per sentence: 137.083333333 104.977214359 131% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.0 20.9669160288 110% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.16666666667 7.25397266985 113% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.12807881773 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.33497536946 37% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 6.9802955665 129% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 2.75862068966 72% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 2.91625615764 34% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0884007007322 0.242375264174 36% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0258025224626 0.0925447433944 28% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0342205155607 0.071462118173 48% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.045207157962 0.151781067708 30% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.029475516945 0.0609392437508 48% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 18.1 12.6369458128 143% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 31.21 53.1260098522 59% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 13.0 6.54236453202 199% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.6 10.9458128079 133% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 17.58 11.5310837438 152% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 11.41 8.32886699507 137% => OK
difficult_words: 116.0 55.0591133005 211% => Less difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 23.0 9.94827586207 231% => Linsear_write_formula is high.
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.3980295567 108% => OK
text_standard: 18.0 10.5123152709 171% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 88.8888888889 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 80.0 Out of 90
---------------------
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.