Whether the design of the building will have a positive or negative impact on people’s life and work?
Recently, the phenomenon of the environmental effects of building design and its corresponding impacts have sparked a heated debate. Although contested by many that the matter of positive design methods 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 comprehended design methods can be a plus and I will scrutinize that throughout this essay.
From a psychology standpoint, a responsible architecture can provide the working or living area with some noticeable effects which is rooted in the fact that the merits of careful recognition of space, as well as people’s behavior and needs, are inextricably bound up. According to my own experience, when I was a university student, I performed an academic experiment which discovered the amazing positive interaction between people and surrounding work area. Thus, the beneficial ramifications of both interesting space and well-designed communal places apparently can be seen.
On the other hand, within the realm of science, careless building design might increase the consequence of behavior disorders. Moreover, fundamental aspects of incompatible behaviors would relate to this reality that the demerits of traditional design pertain to cramped living and working area. As an example some scientific research undertaken by a prestigious university has asserted that the downside of getting boredom is correlated negatively with design process of buildings. Hence, it is correct to presume the preconceived notion of negative impacts of building.
To conclude, while there are several compelling arguments on both sides, I profoundly believe that the benefits of well design and preparing the thoughtful responses of building far weigh its drawbacks, not only do the advantages of inspired working and living areas prove the significance of the positive effects, but also pinpoint long-term implications.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 297, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “As” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...ain to cramped living and working area. As an example some scientific research und...
^^
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 : 10.0 10.5418719212 95% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 6.10837438424 98% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 8.36945812808 131% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 5.94088669951 168% => OK
Pronoun: 18.0 20.9802955665 86% => OK
Preposition: 38.0 31.9359605911 119% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 5.75862068966 122% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1686.0 1207.87684729 140% => OK
No of words: 295.0 242.827586207 121% => OK
Chars per words: 5.71525423729 5.00649968141 114% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.14434120667 3.92707691288 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.23579520105 2.71678728327 119% => OK
Unique words: 185.0 139.433497537 133% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.627118644068 0.580463131201 108% => OK
syllable_count: 531.9 379.143842365 140% => 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: 3.0 1.56157635468 192% => 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: 26.0 20.5024630542 127% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 74.6214690043 50.4703680194 148% => OK
Chars per sentence: 153.272727273 104.977214359 146% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.8181818182 20.9669160288 128% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.72727272727 7.25397266985 120% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.12807881773 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.33497536946 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 6.9802955665 86% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 2.75862068966 72% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 2.91625615764 103% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.303555107142 0.242375264174 125% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0979188999107 0.0925447433944 106% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0358578668339 0.071462118173 50% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.158239326365 0.151781067708 104% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0407686817119 0.0609392437508 67% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 18.9 12.6369458128 150% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 28.17 53.1260098522 53% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 13.0 6.54236453202 199% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.8 10.9458128079 144% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.19 11.5310837438 140% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.71 8.32886699507 129% => OK
difficult_words: 108.0 55.0591133005 196% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.5 9.94827586207 156% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 10.3980295567 119% => OK
text_standard: 16.0 10.5123152709 152% => 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.