The luxuries and conveniences of contemporary life prevent people from developing into truly strong and independent individuals.
Lifestyle in 2020 is believed to be very different from the lifestyle of the people in the 1950s and 1960s. It is seen that now majority of the population have access to products and services of luxury and convenience. However, I don't think that the number of 'strong' and 'independent' people has dwindled. Additionally, even if it has reduced, I don't think a luxurious lifestyle should be blamed for it. My position can be justified for the following reason.
It would be wrong to perceive that the few people in olden times, who had access to items of luxury, were not independent. There are many people in history, who were rich and were known for their wit and had an upstanding reputation for their independent thinking. One of these is Cleopatra, the Queen of Egypt. She belonged to one of the most opulent civilizations in her period, and was known for her decisiveness in matters relating to the court. She was also known for her indulgences in items of luxury. This belief of judging the abilities of an individual from their lifestyle can be very misleading and in many cases, depict a very narrow perspective towards weighing one's successes.
In modern times, as life has become more convenient, people have become more independent. The use of cars and other personal vehicles allows more people to travel on their own, without the need to rely on others or public services. People are able to utilize time efficiently and in their own way. The use of computers and mobiles, which are still considered to be a luxury in many countries, allows its users to learn something new, manage a business and reach the masses. Considering these examples, I can suggest that life in modern times is more independent than ever.
Many might aver that this use of modern technology is still some form of dependence on commodities. However, man has always been discovering and inventing new things to make their life more convenient. Man created fire, and now we cannot imagine eating raw meat for the rest of our lives. These items, that we call items of convenience, empower their users and allow them to achieve something new. These can be considered as tools to improve our state of living, our skills or, our state of mind. Even access to new forms of entertainment helps to reduce stress and is good for mental health. Chances are, that the average life expectancy rate of humans has increased over the years because of using these tools of convenience.
All in all, the lifestyle of the people has improved greatly over the last century and can be attributed to inventions that made life more convenient for us. Devoiding a person of these facilities under the pretext of making them 'mentally strong' or 'independent' can actually make life far more difficult for them, and can adversely affect their mental and physical health.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 231, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...s of luxury and convenience. However, I dont think that the number of strong and ind...
^^^^
Line 1, column 345, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...Additionally, even if it has reduced, I dont think a luxurious lifestyle should be b...
^^^^
Line 2, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...be justified for the following reason. It would be wrong to perceive that the f...
^^^
Line 3, column 677, Rule ID: ONES[1]
Message: Did you mean 'one's'?
Suggestion: one's
...ery narrow perspective towards weighing ones successes. In modern times, as life ...
^^^^
Line 7, column 1, Rule ID: MANY_NN_U[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun might seems to be uncountable; consider using: 'much might', 'a good deal of might'.
Suggestion: Much might; A good deal of might
...times is more independent than ever. Many might aver that this use of modern technology...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, however, if, so, still, as to, in many cases
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 24.0 19.5258426966 123% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.4196629213 97% => OK
Conjunction : 22.0 14.8657303371 148% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 11.3162921348 97% => OK
Pronoun: 48.0 33.0505617978 145% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 66.0 58.6224719101 113% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 12.9106741573 62% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2355.0 2235.4752809 105% => OK
No of words: 486.0 442.535393258 110% => OK
Chars per words: 4.84567901235 5.05705443957 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.69525374022 4.55969084622 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.65654674282 2.79657885939 95% => OK
Unique words: 247.0 215.323595506 115% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.508230452675 0.4932671777 103% => OK
syllable_count: 756.0 704.065955056 107% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 15.0 6.24550561798 240% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 4.0 4.99550561798 80% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.77640449438 169% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.38483146067 68% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 25.0 20.2370786517 124% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 23.0359550562 82% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 40.0303085174 60.3974514979 66% => OK
Chars per sentence: 94.2 118.986275619 79% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.44 23.4991977007 83% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.6 5.21951772744 50% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 7.80617977528 64% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 10.2758426966 117% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 5.13820224719 78% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 9.0 4.83258426966 186% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.149445874962 0.243740707755 61% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0418260051896 0.0831039109588 50% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0422165060366 0.0758088955206 56% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0896762692718 0.150359130593 60% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0404617266729 0.0667264976115 61% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.1 14.1392134831 79% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 48.8420337079 107% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.1743820225 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.85 12.1639044944 89% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.41 8.38706741573 100% => OK
difficult_words: 118.0 100.480337079 117% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 11.8971910112 71% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.2143820225 86% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.7820224719 93% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.