Maintaining public libraries is a waste of money since computer technology can replace their functions. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
In our era, it is the ever-developing technology to signal the dominance of computer science over most of the traditional values. However, there is hardly a prospect in alternating the old-school libraries by applications that take their roots from computer science due to countless troubles during the operation of these new artificial intelligence systems. In my opinion, the combination of modern technology and traditional storing method should be considered a permanent solution than using computer science alone.
On the one hand, it cannot be underestimated the underlying threats hidden behind the promising prospect of applying technology in building new models of library despite the benefits in terms of saving time and space that a modern library did bring to us. What attracts developers' concern the most is how to maintain the stability of network systems embedded to the whole library since an algorithm error could remove all the data. Therefore, it is a heavy pressure to burden on the group of development in both financial aspect and human resources. In this light, setting up a new model of library on a large scale seems to be a wager that human have to gamble too much money on it. Furthermore, altering paper books by digital documents does impact on human’s health negatively, especially to accelerate the aging brain process. For example, children who interact with electronic devices regularly are easy to suffer autism and depression due to the lack of outdoor activities, according to scientists.
On another aspect, though maintaining the system of public libraries is waste of money once it is considered in short-term period, this model is really the more feasible solution compared with building the libraries based on technological platform. In fact, the traditional library system deserves the money invested due to the advantages of its physical documents in terms of historical research. For example, by digging deeper in what the material that made up ancient document were, or what age of the material were, scientists could provide us the clearer vision about our ancestors' level of development. The new model of library of which documents based on digital platform is obviously lack of these aspects. Furthermore, digital documents such as e-book serve only a certain group of users rather than those who are in urgent need of knowledge. For example, the inhabitants of remote areas or of the less-developed countries could not be able to access these sources of knowledge due to the lack of computers or of internet system. In this light, most of the advantages of a library supported by computer science could turn into the obstacles that restrict the opportunity of the people mentioned above. Consequently, those who have to face the adversity in learning process could be lagged behind further. Therefore, the sponsors, the administrations, and the developers should have the more comprehensive vision in making technological library that could serve everyone's purpose.
In conclusion, it will be a long way until the public library lose its evergreen values. As the sine wave, the higher level that technology lift us up, the more dangerous threats we have to solve. I believe in the prospects of applying computer science in terms of storing and spreading out knowledge; however, it is not time to declare that investing money to maintain the system of public library is a waste.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
consequently, furthermore, however, if, really, so, therefore, for example, in conclusion, in fact, in short, such as, in my opinion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 13.1623246493 152% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 7.85571142285 140% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 10.4138276553 86% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 7.30460921844 164% => OK
Pronoun: 34.0 24.0651302605 141% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 99.0 41.998997996 236% => Less preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 14.0 8.3376753507 168% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2890.0 1615.20841683 179% => OK
No of words: 553.0 315.596192385 175% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.226039783 5.12529762239 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.84932490483 4.20363070211 115% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.95497242705 2.80592935109 105% => OK
Unique words: 279.0 176.041082164 158% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.50452079566 0.561755894193 90% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 920.7 506.74238477 182% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 5.43587174349 147% => OK
Article: 8.0 2.52805611222 316% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 2.0 2.10420841683 95% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 0.809619238477 247% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 10.0 4.76152304609 210% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 16.0721442886 131% => OK
Sentence length: 26.0 20.2975951904 128% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 47.1584389834 49.4020404114 95% => OK
Chars per sentence: 137.619047619 106.682146367 129% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.3333333333 20.7667163134 127% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.28571428571 7.06120827912 89% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.67935871743 104% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 3.9879759519 201% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 3.4128256513 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.197996806759 0.244688304435 81% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0569181016906 0.084324248473 67% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0481024187306 0.0667982634062 72% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.128666169865 0.151304729494 85% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0224885052515 0.056905535591 40% => 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: 16.4 13.0946893788 125% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 36.63 50.2224549098 73% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.44779559118 150% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.6 11.3001002004 129% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.35 12.4159519038 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.29 8.58950901804 108% => OK
difficult_words: 153.0 78.4519038076 195% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 16.0 9.78957915832 163% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 10.1190380762 123% => OK
text_standard: 16.0 10.7795591182 148% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 73.0337078652 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 6.5 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.