When a country develops its technology, the traditional skills and ways of life die out. It is pointless to try and keep them alive.To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?
Nowadays, technological advances and their rapid and wide applications are having a significant impact on a nation’s traditional skills and ways of life. Some argue that such impact is so extraordinary that it would make conventional skills and life styles obsolete. However, I believe they would continue to thrive by providing alternatives to modern ways of life, and innovative ideas for modern technologies.
First of all, traditional skills and ways of life are becoming an alternative solution to the problems caused by “mainstreamed” ways of life which are greatly influenced by modern technologies. For instance, a cozy restaurant where traditional, home-brewed beer is served, offers another experience to people who are bored with branded beers that have the same flavor and come out of mass production with new technologies. It is in such a venue where traditional skills are preserved, people become relaxed and educated. Providing diversity and thus enriching modern ways of life, such traditional skills and ways of life would continue to have their place.
Furthermore, conventional skills provide innovative ideas to the development of modern technologies. For example, sparkled by how the word “Love” is traditionally knitted into a sweater by some ethnic minority women in some parts of Asia, some business managers from textile industry have developed some production lines by applying the traditional skills to Computer-Aided Designs (CAD). The products have boosted the companies’ sales which in turn have increased their investment in preserving traditional skills for further developing their technologies.
To conclude, traditional skills and life styles are increasingly becoming a useful alternative to the homogeneity brought by global applications of modern technologies. However, the evolution of technologies is a selection process, whereby some would become obsolete, but there is no doubt that some would thrive when their roles are appreciated.
Discourse Markers used:
['but', 'first', 'furthermore', 'however', 'if', 'so', 'thus', 'as for', 'as to', 'for example', 'for instance', 'no doubt', 'first of all']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.270348837209 0.268076937826 101% => OK
Verbs: 0.162790697674 0.116061578633 140% => OK
Adjectives: 0.110465116279 0.0759168565197 146% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0232558139535 0.0366838410393 63% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0261627906977 0.0131127313244 200% => OK
Prepositions: 0.104651162791 0.155750635184 67% => OK
Participles: 0.0668604651163 0.0379272487307 176% => OK
Conjunctions: 3.46534171871 2.65546596893 130% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0261627906977 0.0210936926555 124% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.00175180941692 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.078488372093 0.0948980150116 83% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0145348837209 0.00437022459523 333% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0261627906977 0.00967000014798 271% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2011.0 1161.00487805 173% => OK
No of words: 297.0 196.9 151% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 6.77104377104 5.90752243213 115% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.15134772569 3.73763899035 111% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.430976430976 0.337110787985 128% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.319865319865 0.247514529752 129% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.26936026936 0.171178102325 157% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.208754208754 0.112407865282 186% => Too many words length more than 8 chars.
Word Length SD: 3.46534171871 2.65546596893 130% => OK
Unique words: 155.0 106.607317073 145% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.521885521886 0.546246751206 96% => OK
Word variations: 52.646761844 49.3433353143 107% => OK
How many sentences: 12.0 8.93414634146 134% => OK
Sentence length: 24.75 23.0094962315 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 54.3973932178 42.9750493124 127% => OK
Chars per sentence: 167.583333333 135.714022679 123% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.75 23.0094962315 108% => OK
Discourse Markers: 1.08333333333 0.689975730869 157% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 3.84146341463 104% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 1.48048780488 0% => OK
Readability: 56.7365319865 47.7609492067 119% => OK
Elegance: 2.08219178082 2.94281807926 71% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.320576689316 0.418131533498 77% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.125803336808 0.181151798455 69% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0606603084022 0.0850326197045 71% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.588880418537 0.706616315825 83% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.108766025563 0.157042692854 69% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.15887595003 0.228904883108 69% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.062684383289 0.108899403657 58% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.358416042774 0.367819155151 97% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.103793437547 0.0812612215331 128% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.231221666274 0.316326947829 73% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0745493159872 0.0921553760075 81% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 3.70731707317 162% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 1.14146341463 350% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.08536585366 49% => OK
Positive topic words: 4.0 3.16585365854 126% => OK
Negative topic words: 1.0 0.956097560976 105% => OK
Neutral topic words: 1.0 3.02926829268 33% => OK
Total topic words: 6.0 7.1512195122 84% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 78.6516853933 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.0 Out of 9
---------------------
Note: This is not the final score. 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.