Experience is a more effective way to teach, compared to books? Agree or disagree?
Recently, the phenomenon of the importance of experience and its corresponding impacts have sparked a heated debate. Although contested by many that the matter of the skill improvement is highly beneficial, such an issue is regarded thoroughly both constructive and positive by a substantial number of individuals. I am inclined to believe that learning by doing things can be a plus and I will scrutinize that throughout this essay.
From a social standpoint, mentors can provide the society with some noticeable effects which rooted in the fact that the merits of the useful experience transition, as well as effective learning, are inextricably bound up. According to my own experience, When I was a university student, I performed an academic experiment which discovered the marvelous value of learning by effective activity and experience. Thus, beneficial ramifications of both new methods of active teaching and youngster guidance apparently can be seen.
On the other hand, within the realm of science passive ways of learning might increase the consequence of less experience workers. Moreover, fundamental aspects of traditional ineffective methods of learning would relate to this realty that the demerits of book referenced instructions pertain to mounting unfavorable influences of inactivity. As an example, some scientific research undertaken by a prestigious university has asserted that the downside of inconsiderable training is correlated negatively with lack of experience. Hence, it is correct to presume the preconceived notion of weak-skilled people.
To conclude, while there are several compelling arguments on both sides, I profoundly believe that the benefits of practical learning methods far weigh its drawbacks, not only do the advantages of high social behavior and skills prove the significance of working-participation enthusiasm, but also pinpoint long-term implications.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, apparently, but, hence, if, moreover, so, thus, well, while, as well as, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 10.5418719212 85% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 6.10837438424 98% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 8.36945812808 84% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 5.94088669951 168% => OK
Pronoun: 18.0 20.9802955665 86% => OK
Preposition: 41.0 31.9359605911 128% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 5.75862068966 260% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1632.0 1207.87684729 135% => OK
No of words: 283.0 242.827586207 117% => OK
Chars per words: 5.7667844523 5.00649968141 115% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.10153676581 3.92707691288 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.41711642885 2.71678728327 126% => OK
Unique words: 185.0 139.433497537 133% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.65371024735 0.580463131201 113% => OK
syllable_count: 513.0 379.143842365 135% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.57093596059 115% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.6157635468 87% => OK
Article: 1.0 1.56157635468 64% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 1.71428571429 292% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 0.931034482759 107% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 3.65517241379 137% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 11.0 12.6551724138 87% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 20.5024630542 122% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 67.2052487128 50.4703680194 133% => OK
Chars per sentence: 148.363636364 104.977214359 141% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.7272727273 20.9669160288 123% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.72727272727 7.25397266985 120% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.12807881773 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.33497536946 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 6.9802955665 100% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 2.75862068966 72% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 2.91625615764 69% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.118556284634 0.242375264174 49% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0388978523745 0.0925447433944 42% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0406247801676 0.071462118173 57% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0583381949813 0.151781067708 38% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0512940825565 0.0609392437508 84% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 18.6 12.6369458128 147% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 29.18 53.1260098522 55% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 11.2 6.54236453202 171% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.4 10.9458128079 141% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.48 11.5310837438 143% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.9 8.32886699507 131% => OK
difficult_words: 108.0 55.0591133005 196% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 9.94827586207 146% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 10.3980295567 115% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 10.5123152709 143% => 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.