Technology was created to help humans solve problem in minimum time duration whereas nowadays we are fully dependent on technology for solving problem. As a result, human capabilities to think for themselves is gradually deteriorating.
Genius brains have discovered technology but can technology make brains genius. In most of the scenarios, it’s affirmative. Let’s consider to calculate the bill of 10 item, we require calculator whereas once our ancestors use to calculate bill of 100 item in a very minimum time. It was because they using brains instead of technology. Nowadays, we have apps for even smallest problems of life like drinking 12 glasses of water to keep fit, we need an app. Without technology, human brains decision making has deteriorated.
Though technology provide us the results to solve a problem but results are generalized result. Technology can’t consider various circumstance of a problem. Many assumptions are made by technology to give the result may be that not the case in current scenario. Suppose in 100 yard of wheat field, 10 gram of fertilizer should be given according to soil detection but may be in our case the wheat seeds are more fertilized and need less fertilizer.
To solve a problem a person must have creative mind and technology general our thinking. Limiting us to standard results whereas out of box thinking is the beginning of the new solutions. Technology limits are imagination. Technology provides us the result but the integral part of the problem solving is how the result was attained. Technology make us skip many part of problem solving hence our mind creative skills are not so developed as our ancients. Nevertheless, technology go hand in hand to solving some critical problem in less time than a human brain would have taken years to solve.
Technology is slowly degrading our capabilities to think for themselves if we rely on them completely and blindly.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 141, Rule ID: ADMIT_ENJOY_VB[3]
Message: This verb is used with the gerund form: 'consider calculating'.
Suggestion: consider calculating
...rios, it's affirmative. Let's consider to calculate the bill of 10 item, we require calcula...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 233, Rule ID: USE_TO_VERB[1]
Message: Did you mean 'used'?
Suggestion: used
...e calculator whereas once our ancestors use to calculate bill of 100 item in a very...
^^^
Line 5, column 283, Rule ID: CD_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun 'yard' seems to be countable, so consider using: 'yards'.
Suggestion: yards
...ase in current scenario. Suppose in 100 yard of wheat field, 10 gram of fertilizer s...
^^^^
Line 5, column 307, Rule ID: CD_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun 'gram' seems to be countable, so consider using: 'grams'.
Suggestion: grams
... Suppose in 100 yard of wheat field, 10 gram of fertilizer should be given according...
^^^^
Line 7, column 335, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...solving is how the result was attained. Technology make us skip many part of problem solvi...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 359, Rule ID: MANY_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun part seems to be countable; consider using: 'many parts'.
Suggestion: many parts
...t was attained. Technology make us skip many part of problem solving hence our mind creat...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, hence, if, may, nevertheless, so, whereas, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 19.5258426966 82% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.4196629213 72% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 14.8657303371 47% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 1.0 11.3162921348 9% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 21.0 33.0505617978 64% => OK
Preposition: 39.0 58.6224719101 67% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 12.9106741573 31% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1637.0 2235.4752809 73% => OK
No of words: 315.0 442.535393258 71% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.19682539683 5.05705443957 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.21286593061 4.55969084622 92% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.94599753675 2.79657885939 105% => OK
Unique words: 174.0 215.323595506 81% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.552380952381 0.4932671777 112% => OK
syllable_count: 519.3 704.065955056 74% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 6.24550561798 64% => OK
Article: 0.0 4.99550561798 0% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.38483146067 68% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 20.2370786517 94% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 23.0359550562 69% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 38.764578171 60.3974514979 64% => OK
Chars per sentence: 86.1578947368 118.986275619 72% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.5789473684 23.4991977007 71% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.10526315789 5.21951772744 59% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 7.80617977528 77% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 10.2758426966 58% => More positive sentences wanted.
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: 0.129176026498 0.243740707755 53% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0475743316414 0.0831039109588 57% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0401699721087 0.0758088955206 53% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0954322973749 0.150359130593 63% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0488702067232 0.0667264976115 73% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.4 14.1392134831 81% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 55.24 48.8420337079 113% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 12.1743820225 78% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.58 12.1639044944 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.39 8.38706741573 100% => OK
difficult_words: 79.0 100.480337079 79% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 11.8971910112 63% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 11.2143820225 75% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.