There is no one who can deny the rapid achievement of technology in contemporary society. It is common to see that news reported that a breakthrough product is invented by a business or institution or else. There are still controversies about what the purpose of technological advancement should be. The author asserted that the most important goal of technological accomplishment should be to increase people’s efficiency to offer more leisure time, however, below essay does not largely agree with this claime based on the consideration of other principal purposes of technologies.
Admittedly, efficiency is one of the most primary ends of technological achievements as shown history of technology. For example, all businesses related to telecommunication struggled to make their service faster than ever. Several decades ago, people thought that 3G service of telecommunication is enough fast to search but now businesses introduced 4G, 5G, and now LTE is available to be used and it made people get time for themselves, making spend less time on waiting for delivering a data. A laundry machine is also a good example to illustrate how we get efficiency through technology. Due to a laundry machine, people (especially those who are women) could reduce the time devoted to doing laundry. Like this, technology aiming to increase efficiency give us the time for resting.
Nonetheless, the end of technological achievement should not be limited to enhance efficiency to make people have more rest time than ever. Another important purpose of the development of technology is to deliver benefits to the disadvantaged. This kind of technology may not bring efficiency to most people but it may give people who cannot walk or speak or move opportunities to live their lives. For example, A disability robot is a robot designed to help people who have physical disabilities with daily tasks. This robot cannot work for people who do not have physical disabilities to provide efficient means but it is worthwhile for many disabled people.
Furthermore, if the purpose of technology is restrained to efficiency, fundamental development of technology would be hardly achieved. For example, Newton’s theory of gravity or Einstein’s theory of space-time, and Hawking’s theory of quantom are not said to be perfectly fit the purpose of improvement of efficiency. A theory related to the basic principle of science or the world is essential to understand the physical world and expand our perspectives of the universe but it could not be applied instantly for enhance efficiency and has no effect for getting leisure time for people. Even if it is not easy to find immediate application of technology, development of technology itself is important to be achieved.
Therefore, the author who claimed that the goal of development of technology is limited to improve efficiency for offering leisure time to people should consider other goals of technology based on broad perspectives. Technological achievement should contribute to help people who are in need and expand our knowledge of the world as well as to enhance our efficiency of working.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 645, Rule ID: WHO_NOUN[1]
Message: A noun should not follow "who". Try changing to a verb or maybe to 'who is a are'.
Suggestion: who is a are
...aundry machine, people especially those who are women could reduce the time devoted to ...
^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 111, Rule ID: ADVERB_WORD_ORDER[8]
Message: The adverb 'hardly' is usually put between 'would' and 'be'.
Suggestion: would hardly be
..., fundamental development of technology would be hardly achieved. For example, Newton’s theory ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, furthermore, however, if, may, nonetheless, so, still, therefore, well, while, as to, for example, kind of, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 27.0 19.5258426966 138% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.4196629213 113% => OK
Conjunction : 16.0 14.8657303371 108% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 11.3162921348 106% => OK
Pronoun: 25.0 33.0505617978 76% => OK
Preposition: 70.0 58.6224719101 119% => OK
Nominalization: 19.0 12.9106741573 147% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2648.0 2235.4752809 118% => OK
No of words: 500.0 442.535393258 113% => OK
Chars per words: 5.296 5.05705443957 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.72870804502 4.55969084622 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.23663776163 2.79657885939 116% => OK
Unique words: 239.0 215.323595506 111% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.478 0.4932671777 97% => OK
syllable_count: 869.4 704.065955056 123% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 6.24550561798 48% => OK
Article: 6.0 4.99550561798 120% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.77640449438 113% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.38483146067 46% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 20.2370786517 104% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 23.0359550562 100% => OK
Sentence length SD: 60.9305392414 60.3974514979 101% => OK
Chars per sentence: 126.095238095 118.986275619 106% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.8095238095 23.4991977007 101% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.14285714286 5.21951772744 118% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 15.0 10.2758426966 146% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 5.13820224719 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.83258426966 62% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.281496401067 0.243740707755 115% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0904858520099 0.0831039109588 109% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0611218626683 0.0758088955206 81% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.174765271013 0.150359130593 116% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0273732838881 0.0667264976115 41% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.4 14.1392134831 109% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 39.67 48.8420337079 81% => OK
smog_index: 13.0 7.92365168539 164% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 12.1743820225 110% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.76 12.1639044944 113% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.44 8.38706741573 101% => OK
difficult_words: 116.0 100.480337079 115% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 11.8971910112 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.2143820225 100% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.7820224719 110% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.