Some people believe that our ever-increasing use of technology significantly reduces our opportunities for human interaction. Other people believe that technology provides us with new and better ways to communicate and connect with one another.
Write a response in which you discuss which view more closely aligns with your own position and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should address both of the views presented.
Technology is ever evolving and the people with it too. one view is that which criticizes our ever-increasing use of technology and the other view is in which people believe that technology provides us with efficient ways to connect with one another. The latter closely aligns with my position mainly because of these two reasons.
First of all, finding people whom one used to know and is no longer in contact with has become an extremely trivial task. Childhood friends, distant relatives and many more, all can be connected with very easily with just one search in the search bar. For instance, a man needs to get in touch with a particular person who was his neighbor in his hometown because he needs him to intermittently check on his old parents still living there. To achieve this, he can simply search his name on any social media app and get in touch instantly, compared to searching for his contact details in various places such as the telephone directory.
Second, making large groups discussing a common agenda or idea is very easy leading to an efficient, systematic and functional group. Today, almost every activity/group has a virtual presence to facilitate better organization and fast communication. A new member can join the group and get up to speed in a matter of minutes, he can access all documents(if present), all this while perhaps being thousands of miles away. Moreover, the group may very easily conduct successful surveys through online forms which would be an arduous task, if not for this very 'technology'.
However, many people would argue otherwise, stating that the use of technology significantly reduces our opportunities for human interaction. People tend to misuse this technology or rather I should say, are slaved by this technology, controlled by the 'technology' they bought instead of controlling it. Getting addicted to social medias' endlessly scrolling pages of content made to glue people to their screens. These flaws have greatly overshadowed the benefits that technology initially introduced. In both of the reasons mentioned above it clearly shows that 'reducing human interaction' is the last thing technology promotes or was meant to do. In conclusion, I would like to say that it is the peoples' nature that has elicited this change in technology, not the other way around.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 57, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: One
...er evolving and the people with it too. one view is that which criticizes our ever-...
^^^
Line 1, column 332, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...on mainly because of these two reasons. First of all, finding people whom one us...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 637, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...places such as the telephone directory. Second, making large groups discussing a...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 698, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'peoples'' or 'people's'?
Suggestion: peoples'; people's
...ion, I would like to say that it is the peoples nature that has elicited this change in...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, however, if, may, moreover, second, so, still, while, for instance, in conclusion, such as, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 19.5258426966 67% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.4196629213 72% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 14.8657303371 74% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 11.3162921348 106% => OK
Pronoun: 36.0 33.0505617978 109% => OK
Preposition: 52.0 58.6224719101 89% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 12.9106741573 54% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1949.0 2235.4752809 87% => OK
No of words: 383.0 442.535393258 87% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.08877284595 5.05705443957 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.42384287591 4.55969084622 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.81034809807 2.79657885939 100% => OK
Unique words: 234.0 215.323595506 109% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.610966057441 0.4932671777 124% => OK
syllable_count: 607.5 704.065955056 86% => 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: 4.0 4.99550561798 80% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 3.10617977528 32% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.38483146067 68% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 20.2370786517 84% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 22.0 23.0359550562 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 38.2806066343 60.3974514979 63% => OK
Chars per sentence: 114.647058824 118.986275619 96% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.5294117647 23.4991977007 96% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.52941176471 5.21951772744 125% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 7.80617977528 51% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 10.2758426966 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 5.13820224719 19% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.374929104004 0.243740707755 154% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.114259082276 0.0831039109588 137% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.136813096352 0.0758088955206 180% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.223924693052 0.150359130593 149% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.176067988996 0.0667264976115 264% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.8 14.1392134831 98% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 48.8420337079 101% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.1743820225 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.54 12.1639044944 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.1 8.38706741573 109% => OK
difficult_words: 106.0 100.480337079 105% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 11.8971910112 97% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.2143820225 96% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => 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: 75.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.5 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.