new teachers and doctors should work in rural areas at first has or have free choice to select where to work
Recently, the phenomenon of whether new teachers and doctors should work in rural areas at first has sparked a heated debate. Although contested by many that medical facilities are highly beneficial, such issue might be regrded thoroughly both constructive and positive by a substantial number of individuals. I am inclined to believe that having free choices can be a plus, and I will analyze that throughout this essay.
From the social standpoint, working of new graduates in disadvataged areas like a countryside can provide the society with noticeable effects, which are rooted in the fact that high educated schools and new doctors are intertwined inextricably with not only social interactions but also social welfare. According to my own experience, when I was a university student, I performed an academic experiment which discovered higher standards of living. Thus, beneficial ramifications of both working conditions and job opportunities apparently can be seen.
Within the realm of economic science, having free choice in choosing workplace might increase the consequences of higher unemployment rates. Moreover, fundamental aspects of the inflation rate would relate to this reality that the demerits of rural areas pertain to disadvantaged schools. As a tangible example, a scientific research undertaken by a prestigious university has asserted that the downside of inappropriate learning facilities is correlated negatively with poor living conditions. Hence, it is correct to presume the preconceived notion of the lower economic growth.
To conclude, while there are several compelling arguments on both side, the benefits of having free will of choosing workplace instead of working in rural areas compulsarily far outweigh its drawbacks. Not only do the advantages of economic elements prove the significance of social factors, but also pinpoint its crucial implications.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, apparently, but, first, hence, if, moreover, so, thus, while
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.5418719212 95% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 6.10837438424 147% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 8.36945812808 84% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 5.94088669951 151% => OK
Pronoun: 16.0 20.9802955665 76% => OK
Preposition: 39.0 31.9359605911 122% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.75862068966 104% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1618.0 1207.87684729 134% => OK
No of words: 285.0 242.827586207 117% => OK
Chars per words: 5.67719298246 5.00649968141 113% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.10876417139 3.92707691288 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.17559173809 2.71678728327 117% => OK
Unique words: 181.0 139.433497537 130% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.635087719298 0.580463131201 109% => OK
syllable_count: 511.2 379.143842365 135% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.57093596059 115% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.6157635468 65% => OK
Article: 3.0 1.56157635468 192% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 1.71428571429 233% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 0.931034482759 215% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 3.65517241379 109% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 12.6551724138 95% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 20.5024630542 112% => OK
Sentence length SD: 56.504363155 50.4703680194 112% => OK
Chars per sentence: 134.833333333 104.977214359 128% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.75 20.9669160288 113% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.5 7.25397266985 76% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.12807881773 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.33497536946 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 6.9802955665 115% => 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: 0.311177964071 0.242375264174 128% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.095677220137 0.0925447433944 103% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.127852892825 0.071462118173 179% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.1697400266 0.151781067708 112% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0888782133985 0.0609392437508 146% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.2 12.6369458128 136% => 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: 15.96 11.5310837438 138% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.71 8.32886699507 129% => OK
difficult_words: 107.0 55.0591133005 194% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 9.94827586207 146% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.3980295567 108% => 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.