Communication between people has aletred radically compared to the past. Indeed, thanks to Internet the intrepersonal relationships are different in modern times. While this development is beneficial for individuals because of the wider connections and greater intimacy, there are some who argue that internet is a superficial means of communication lacking genuine interaction. In this essay I will examine these posititive aspects of the implementation of internet in communication and explain the drawbacks is having at the same time.
From an individual's perspective, internet has created moden forms of communication, which have brought about great advantages. Whereas in the past, communication between people of different countries was extremely difficualt or even implausible, internet has enhanced the relationships among populations all over the world. Applications like messenger, instagram and twitter, for instance, have changed the way individuals interact with each other, disappearing the geographical burdens. Another benefit is the stronger connections that have been created through this kind of contact. This intimacy comes from sharing photos in the Facebook, or uploading stories through instagram. Netizens all over the world have now access to aspects of their loved ones' lives like never before.
There are, however, some drawbacks associated with the integration of internet in the way people interact with each other. The most significant relates to the lack of intrepersonal communication, which is linked to people's evolution. Traditional ways of communication were invented by humans in order to express their feelings and differentiate from animals and their lack of speech. Writing letters, meetingour friends face to face , or speaking on the phone are some examples of language's developments through decades, and cannot be replaced by social networking sites . Clearly, there is some merit to thiw views, but I would argue that it is clouded by nostalgia rather than truth.
In conclusion, communication has entirely changed and has been adjusted to the internet. Even if this advancement has affected negatively the traditional way of interacting, it has broaden the audience with which we communicate and made people come closer.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 9, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'individuals'' or 'individual's'?
Suggestion: individuals'; individual's
...is having at the same time. From an individuals perspective, internet has created moden...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 753, Rule ID: ONES[1]
Message: Did you mean 'one's'?
Suggestion: one's
...ve now access to aspects of their loved ones lives like never before. There are,...
^^^^
Line 5, column 216, Rule ID: TO_NON_BASE[1]
Message: The verb after "to" should be in the base form: 'people'.
Suggestion: people
...sonal communication, which is linked to peoples evolution. Traditional ways of communic...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 433, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma, but not before the comma
Suggestion: ,
...letters, meetingour friends face to face , or speaking on the phone are some examp...
^^
Line 5, column 571, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Don't put a space before the full stop
Suggestion: .
...t be replaced by social networking sites . Clearly, there is some merit to thiw vi...
^^
Line 7, column 182, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Use past participle here: 'broadened'.
Suggestion: broadened
... traditional way of interacting, it has broaden the audience with which we communicate ...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, however, if, so, whereas, while, for instance, in conclusion, kind of
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 13.1623246493 122% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 7.85571142285 38% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 10.4138276553 115% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 7.30460921844 96% => OK
Pronoun: 17.0 24.0651302605 71% => OK
Preposition: 57.0 41.998997996 136% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 8.3376753507 192% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1940.0 1615.20841683 120% => OK
No of words: 337.0 315.596192385 107% => OK
Chars per words: 5.75667655786 5.12529762239 112% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.28457229495 4.20363070211 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.20227923285 2.80592935109 114% => OK
Unique words: 199.0 176.041082164 113% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.590504451039 0.561755894193 105% => OK
syllable_count: 604.8 506.74238477 119% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.60771543086 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 5.43587174349 37% => OK
Article: 1.0 2.52805611222 40% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.10420841683 95% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 0.809619238477 494% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 4.76152304609 63% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 16.0721442886 106% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 20.2975951904 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 41.5563152317 49.4020404114 84% => OK
Chars per sentence: 114.117647059 106.682146367 107% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.8235294118 20.7667163134 95% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.35294117647 7.06120827912 62% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 5.01903807615 120% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.67935871743 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 3.9879759519 75% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 3.4128256513 176% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.270363204848 0.244688304435 110% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0813640967511 0.084324248473 96% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0656361817518 0.0667982634062 98% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.179202628065 0.151304729494 118% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0634432267356 0.056905535591 111% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.6 13.0946893788 119% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 35.27 50.2224549098 70% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.44779559118 150% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.1 11.3001002004 116% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.13 12.4159519038 130% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.97 8.58950901804 116% => OK
difficult_words: 115.0 78.4519038076 147% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 9.78957915832 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.1190380762 95% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 10.7795591182 111% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 89.8876404494 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 8.0 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.