Nowadays, as the development of technology, people’s life become more convenient than ever. The dependence on technology has been widely discussed. Some may hold that we are too rely on technologies to think independently. However, I cannot agree. From my perspective, technologies help people to think better.
To begin with, admittedly, we become more dependent on high-tech products, e.g., smart phones, laptops, etc. All these play important roles in our life, serving as significant tools to solve various problems. Take calculator as an example. Calculators are now ubiquitous, no matter physical ones, or those embedded in smart phones. When we want to count how much did we spent today, we could add all expenses by simply few presses. On the contrary, in the past, we had to calculate on draft. With calculators, we count less. Consequently, our calculation become less proficient. Therefore, we indeed more rely on technologies today.
Furthermore, technologies actually improved rather than decreased our thinking ability. This is because technologies only helps us to solve the works which are low level and redundant. As a result, we can focus on the work on higher level, and thereby think more comprehensively and work more efficiently. For instance, a novel term, big data, become popular these years. As its literary meaning, it refers to a tremendous amount of data. In the past, we even not be able to collect such data due to limitation of technology. But now, applying cutting-edge technologies, collecting, storing, even analyzing such data become possible. So we are more insightful on data than ever. Hence, technologies actually proved us a stronger ability to think for ourselves.
In conclusion, although technologies are more and more indispensable in our daily life, they won’t diminish our thinking ability. Instead, it enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of our thought.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 158, Rule ID: MASS_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Possible agreement error - use third-person verb forms for singular and mass nouns: 'holds'.
Suggestion: holds
...ogy has been widely discussed. Some may hold that we are too rely on technologies to...
^^^^
Line 1, column 175, Rule ID: TOO_TO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'to rely'?
Suggestion: to rely
...ly discussed. Some may hold that we are too rely on technologies to think independently....
^^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 179, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'relied'.
Suggestion: relied
...iscussed. Some may hold that we are too rely on technologies to think independently....
^^^^
Line 7, column 143, Rule ID: IT_VBZ[1]
Message: Did you mean 'enhances'?
Suggestion: enhances
...inish our thinking ability. Instead, it enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of our...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, consequently, e.g., furthermore, hence, however, if, may, so, therefore, for instance, in conclusion, as a result, on the contrary, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 19.5258426966 41% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 12.4196629213 32% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 14.8657303371 47% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 3.0 11.3162921348 27% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 31.0 33.0505617978 94% => OK
Preposition: 36.0 58.6224719101 61% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 12.9106741573 46% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1620.0 2235.4752809 72% => OK
No of words: 300.0 442.535393258 68% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.4 5.05705443957 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.16179145029 4.55969084622 91% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.16286789691 2.79657885939 113% => OK
Unique words: 195.0 215.323595506 91% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.65 0.4932671777 132% => OK
syllable_count: 511.2 704.065955056 73% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 13.0 6.24550561798 208% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 2.0 4.99550561798 40% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 3.10617977528 161% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.77640449438 169% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.38483146067 160% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 25.0 20.2370786517 124% => OK
Sentence length: 12.0 23.0359550562 52% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 27.7167386249 60.3974514979 46% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 64.8 118.986275619 54% => More chars_per_sentence wanted.
Words per sentence: 12.0 23.4991977007 51% => More words per sentence wanted.
Discourse Markers: 6.4 5.21951772744 123% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 7.80617977528 51% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 10.2758426966 117% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 5.13820224719 39% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 11.0 4.83258426966 228% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.252564943422 0.243740707755 104% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0689290035034 0.0831039109588 83% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0813713785288 0.0758088955206 107% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.171823347384 0.150359130593 114% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.066316469558 0.0667264976115 99% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.0 14.1392134831 71% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 50.84 48.8420337079 104% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.2 12.1743820225 76% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.15 12.1639044944 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.18 8.38706741573 109% => OK
difficult_words: 94.0 100.480337079 94% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 5.5 11.8971910112 46% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 6.8 11.2143820225 61% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.7820224719 85% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Better to have 5/6 paragraphs with 3/4 arguments. And try always support/against one side but compare two sides, like this:
para 1: introduction
para 2: reason 1. address both of the views presented for reason 1
para 3: reason 2. address both of the views presented for reason 2
para 4: reason 3. address both of the views presented for reason 3
para 5: reason 4. address both of the views presented for reason 4 (optional)
para 6: conclusion.
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.