Maintaining public libraries is a waste of money since computer technology can replace their functions. Do you agree or disagree?
Retaining public libraries nowadays is thought to be wasteful on account of the advancement and the capability of replacing deriving from computer technology. I partly disagree with this point, because I believe that conventional libraries bear specific values and should not be radically replaced.
On the one hand, it is undeniable that computer technologies have progressed to an extent by which they can play a role as libraries with reasonable spending. Firstly, computers and servers can now able to storage gigantic quantities of information, which are comparable to hundreds of thousands of books, at low cost. The saving, explained by the mass production of technology components and the cut on the overhead costs used to run the libraries, thus can be channeled to other public services, such as hospitals or playgrounds for children. Secondly, technology simplifies the process of accessing books or documents and that, given the fact of the widespread coverage of the internet, allows more people to borrow and read at a time. For example, those who possess a smartphone or a laptop can now stay at home and pick a book from an online library, which would be much more convenient.
On the other hand, I would convince that public libraries are not useless and should not be undervalued. The first reason is that traditional libraries are in an integral interaction with the publishing industry, which produces a given amount of employment. That is actually more beneficial when a group of people has a stable job since they can nurture their families and pay tax for the government. Moreover, provided that some people may find it difficult to gain access to those aforementioned technologies. The elderly or those living in remote areas, for instance, would be probably accustomed to reading in local libraries, thus abolishing these places may pose some problems to them. Finally, a mutual place to read books and newspapers like a public library seems to evoke communal sense and reading cultural as people can interact and share their ideas while reading.
In conclusion, computer technologies are definitely powerful and able to somewhat replace public libraries, it seems to me that maintaining this type of facility however contributes specific value to the community.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, finally, first, firstly, however, if, may, moreover, second, secondly, so, thus, while, for example, for instance, in conclusion, such as, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 13.1623246493 106% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 7.85571142285 165% => OK
Conjunction : 17.0 10.4138276553 163% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 7.30460921844 192% => OK
Pronoun: 26.0 24.0651302605 108% => OK
Preposition: 47.0 41.998997996 112% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 8.3376753507 84% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1938.0 1615.20841683 120% => OK
No of words: 368.0 315.596192385 117% => OK
Chars per words: 5.26630434783 5.12529762239 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.37987740619 4.20363070211 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.95477165074 2.80592935109 105% => OK
Unique words: 211.0 176.041082164 120% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.573369565217 0.561755894193 102% => OK
syllable_count: 608.4 506.74238477 120% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 5.43587174349 110% => OK
Article: 4.0 2.52805611222 158% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.10420841683 95% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.76152304609 84% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 16.0721442886 87% => OK
Sentence length: 26.0 20.2975951904 128% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 33.4561089263 49.4020404114 68% => OK
Chars per sentence: 138.428571429 106.682146367 130% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.2857142857 20.7667163134 127% => OK
Discourse Markers: 12.2142857143 7.06120827912 173% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.67935871743 81% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 3.9879759519 75% => OK
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: 0.239239994104 0.244688304435 98% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0779483637776 0.084324248473 92% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0565169747824 0.0667982634062 85% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.147118707416 0.151304729494 97% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0227333027197 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: 16.5 13.0946893788 126% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 36.63 50.2224549098 73% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.6 11.3001002004 129% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.58 12.4159519038 109% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.56 8.58950901804 111% => OK
difficult_words: 108.0 78.4519038076 138% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 9.78957915832 123% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 10.1190380762 123% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 10.7795591182 111% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 84.2696629213 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.5 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.