Forming interpersonal connections is apparently an integral part of human activities. Socializing allows us to live a healthy life in a number of ways. Electronic devices such as smartphones, computers, and tablets have aided communication rather than hampering it and there are a multitude of reasons that support this idea. According to the presented claim, the advent of these so-called deleterious gadgets has caused a negative effect on the soft skill development of youngsters. It comes with the reasoning that these devices do not promote the formation of true personalities and long-lasting relationships. However, I strongly disagree with the claim due to the following three reasons.
Firstly, smartphones and computers allow us to connect with people who are far from us and have various cultures and languages. This gives the young generation an opportunity to gain knowledge about things they cannot learn from their surroundings. For example, in North Korea, students are widely brainwashed by government propaganda through highly censored textbooks. The internet has proved to be a boon in this scenario since with the introduction of video conferencing to the general public, it has become easier for the students to acculturate to new environments. It is possible that the immediate neighbors or classmates are narrow-minded or in other words, limited in outlook. In this case, it becomes imperative to look at other options otherwise personality development will be profoundly hindered.
Second, gone are the times when communication via phone was limited to texting or voice calling. Video conferencing allows the face-to-face interpersonal exchange of views which is not only more interactive but also salubrious for the development of expression and speech skills. Therefore, there is no doubt that in the future the potential of such gadgets will only increase.
Thirdly, engaging fully and honestly does not preclude the requirement of phones. The claim and reason are based on several unwarranted assumptions. In the present age, many meetings and business deals are concluded online, thus, probably with the use of phones, tablets, or computers. This has not only made the logistics of the situation effective but cheaper. It cuts out unnecessary time wasted during transit and preparation of many official documents, thus, allowing time for business persons to collaborate more with their peers and thereby promoting the growth of their communication skills. Because of video conferencing, it has become possible for people sitting far apart possible in remote areas to contact people on the mainland. This seriously undermines the claim presented.
In conclusion, although many people will disfavor the use of smartphones and related gadgets as effective means of developing better relationships, there is a lack of evidence supporting this line of thought. The reason could be better supported if the author could provide more facts, perhaps in the form of systematized studies. Phones and tablets are inherently meant to support communication and personality development. People who overlook this idea are probably those who have witnessed youngsters either misusing gadgets or rare individuals with great personalities that have spurned the use of gadgets. Therefore, anyone who rejects the hidden potential of phones as a salutary way to improve interpersonal skills does so at his/her own peril.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 482, Rule ID: GENERAL_XX[1]
Message: Use simply 'public'.
Suggestion: public
...troduction of video conferencing to the general public, it has become easier for the students ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 791, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...riously undermines the claim presented. In conclusion, although many people will...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, apparently, but, first, firstly, honestly, however, if, look, second, so, therefore, third, thirdly, thus, as to, for example, in conclusion, no doubt, such as, in other words
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.5258426966 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 12.4196629213 48% => OK
Conjunction : 22.0 14.8657303371 148% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 11.3162921348 97% => OK
Pronoun: 33.0 33.0505617978 100% => OK
Preposition: 70.0 58.6224719101 119% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 12.9106741573 124% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2916.0 2235.4752809 130% => OK
No of words: 526.0 442.535393258 119% => OK
Chars per words: 5.54372623574 5.05705443957 110% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.78901763229 4.55969084622 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.10324632901 2.79657885939 111% => OK
Unique words: 298.0 215.323595506 138% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.566539923954 0.4932671777 115% => OK
syllable_count: 915.3 704.065955056 130% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 6.24550561798 160% => OK
Article: 4.0 4.99550561798 80% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.77640449438 113% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.38483146067 137% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 27.0 20.2370786517 133% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 23.0359550562 82% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 47.0870250565 60.3974514979 78% => OK
Chars per sentence: 108.0 118.986275619 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.4814814815 23.4991977007 83% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.7037037037 5.21951772744 128% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 10.2758426966 117% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 5.13820224719 175% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.83258426966 124% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.184008638138 0.243740707755 75% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0430301465767 0.0831039109588 52% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0400998970905 0.0758088955206 53% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0966230961248 0.150359130593 64% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0695765544972 0.0667264976115 104% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.4 14.1392134831 102% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 43.73 48.8420337079 90% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.1743820225 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.85 12.1639044944 122% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.56 8.38706741573 114% => OK
difficult_words: 166.0 100.480337079 165% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 11.8971910112 76% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.2143820225 86% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.7820224719 85% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 Out of 6
---------------------
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.