When a country develops its technology, the traditional skills and ways of life die out. It is pointless to try and keep them alive.To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?
Nowadays, technological advances and their rapid and wide applications are having a significant impact on a nation’s traditional skills and ways of life. Some argue that such impact is so extraordinary that it would make conventional skills and life styles obsolete. However, I believe they would continue to thrive by providing alternatives to modern ways of life, and innovative ideas for modern technologies.
First of all, traditional skills and ways of life are becoming an alternative solution to the problems caused by “mainstreamed” ways of life which are greatly influenced by modern technologies. For instance, a cozy restaurant where traditional, home-brewed beer is served, offers another experience to people who are bored with branded beers that have the same flavor and come out of mass production with new technologies. It is in such a venue where traditional skills are preserved, people become relaxed and educated. Providing diversity and thus enriching modern ways of life, such traditional skills and ways of life would continue to have their place.
Furthermore, conventional skills provide innovative ideas to the development of modern technologies. For example, sparkled by how the word “Love” is traditionally knitted into a sweater by some ethnic minority women in some parts of Asia, some business managers from textile industry have developed some production lines by applying the traditional skills to Computer-Aided Designs (CAD). The products have boosted the companies’ sales which in turn have increased their investment in preserving traditional skills for further developing their technologies.
To conclude, traditional skills and life styles are increasingly becoming a useful alternative to the homogeneity brought by global applications of modern technologies. However, the evolution of technologies is a selection process, whereby some would become obsolete, but there is no doubt that some would thrive when their roles are appreciated.
Comments
Essay evaluations by e-grader
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, furthermore, however, if, so, thus, as for, as to, for example, for instance, no doubt, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 7.48453608247 174% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 4.92783505155 101% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 5.05154639175 238% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 10.0 3.03092783505 330% => Less relative clauses wanted (maybe 'which' is over used).
Pronoun: 13.0 32.9175257732 39% => OK
Preposition: 37.0 26.3917525773 140% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 3.85567010309 233% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1698.0 937.175257732 181% => OK
No of words: 297.0 206.0 144% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.71717171717 4.54256449028 126% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.15134772569 3.78020617076 110% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.28973976755 2.54303337028 129% => OK
Unique words: 155.0 127.690721649 121% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.521885521886 0.622605031667 84% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 538.2 290.88556701 185% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.41237113402 127% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 9.13402061856 22% => OK
Article: 3.0 0.824742268041 364% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 0.0 1.83505154639 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 0.463917525773 431% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 1.0 1.44329896907 69% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 12.6804123711 95% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 16.3608247423 147% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 52.9015726504 44.8134815571 118% => OK
Chars per sentence: 141.5 76.5299724578 185% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.75 16.8248392259 147% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.33333333333 4.34317383033 215% => Less transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.29896907216 93% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 2.54639175258 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 7.41237113402 81% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 1.49484536082 268% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 3.94845360825 51% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.188626708231 0.216113520407 87% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0849542898519 0.0766984524023 111% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0396507657258 0.0603063233224 66% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.124951585306 0.12726935374 98% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0368433098282 0.0580467560999 63% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.9 8.37731958763 214% => Automated_readability_index is high.
flesch_reading_ease: 30.2 70.7449484536 43% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 13.0 3.82989690722 339% => Smog_index is high.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.0 7.45979381443 201% => Flesch kincaid grade is high.
coleman_liau_index: 16.19 8.71597938144 186% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.29 7.59969072165 122% => OK
difficult_words: 84.0 41.2886597938 203% => Less difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 8.62886597938 151% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 8.54432989691 136% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 8.15463917526 159% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 78.6516853933 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.0 Out of 9
---------------------
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.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, furthermore, however, if, so, thus, as for, as to, for example, for instance, no doubt, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 7.48453608247 174% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 4.92783505155 101% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 5.05154639175 238% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 10.0 3.03092783505 330% => Less relative clauses wanted (maybe 'which' is over used).
Pronoun: 13.0 32.9175257732 39% => OK
Preposition: 37.0 26.3917525773 140% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 3.85567010309 233% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1698.0 937.175257732 181% => OK
No of words: 297.0 206.0 144% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.71717171717 4.54256449028 126% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.15134772569 3.78020617076 110% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.28973976755 2.54303337028 129% => OK
Unique words: 155.0 127.690721649 121% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.521885521886 0.622605031667 84% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 538.2 290.88556701 185% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.41237113402 127% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 9.13402061856 22% => OK
Article: 3.0 0.824742268041 364% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 0.0 1.83505154639 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 0.463917525773 431% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 1.0 1.44329896907 69% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 12.6804123711 95% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 16.3608247423 147% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 52.9015726504 44.8134815571 118% => OK
Chars per sentence: 141.5 76.5299724578 185% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.75 16.8248392259 147% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.33333333333 4.34317383033 215% => Less transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.29896907216 93% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 2.54639175258 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 7.41237113402 81% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 1.49484536082 268% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 3.94845360825 51% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.188626708231 0.216113520407 87% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0849542898519 0.0766984524023 111% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0396507657258 0.0603063233224 66% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.124951585306 0.12726935374 98% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0368433098282 0.0580467560999 63% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.9 8.37731958763 214% => Automated_readability_index is high.
flesch_reading_ease: 30.2 70.7449484536 43% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 13.0 3.82989690722 339% => Smog_index is high.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.0 7.45979381443 201% => Flesch kincaid grade is high.
coleman_liau_index: 16.19 8.71597938144 186% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.29 7.59969072165 122% => OK
difficult_words: 84.0 41.2886597938 203% => Less difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 8.62886597938 151% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 8.54432989691 136% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 8.15463917526 159% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 78.6516853933 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.0 Out of 9
---------------------
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.