Maintaining public libraries is a waste of money since computer technology can replace their functions. To what extent you agree or disagree?
Some people hold the opinion that it is pointless to spend budgets on remaining community centers that enable citizens to borrow and read books from there because cutting-edge technology provides people with a more effective way to do that. I totally agree with this point of view because using computer technology gives citizens a better source of data and it is more convenient than traditional libraries.
Nowadays, it is evident that digital technology is conducive to helping people approach useful sources of books. First and foremost, computers with internet access can supply a wealth of information for readers because not only official organizations but also individuals can share data in the cyberspace in form of e-books, magazines, and so on. Furthermore, these materials are very diverse with documents on various categories such as environment or education. It is exemplified by an ever-increasing number of students all over the world who have been taking advantage of their computers for self-study thanks to suitable documents found online.
Another compelling reason is that computer technology is highly appreciated owing to its convenience. People in the present day can find many kinds of books with just several clicks instead of going to the libraries and looking for them with difficulty. They can easily read online or download them to serve their own purposes. It sometimes costs a little bit, but free in most cases. Additionally, if people use books on the internet, they may not need to concern about the complicated procedures when borrowing books from brick-and-mortar libraries. The traditional libraries, therefore, become redundant. To illustrate, many libraries in Vietnam have been converted into labs, classrooms, or other public places due to a decreasing number of members especially those who are competent in computer skills.
To sum up, I strongly believe that computer technology can replace libraries functions perfectly because of the tremendous merits it brings. As a result, diminishing or using public libraries for other purposes should be seriously taken into account.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 349, Rule ID: LITTLE_BIT[1]
Message: Reduce redundancy by using 'little' or 'bit'.
Suggestion: little; bit
...heir own purposes. It sometimes costs a little bit, but free in most cases. Additionally, ...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, furthermore, if, look, may, so, therefore, such as, as a result, in most cases, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 13.1623246493 91% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 7.85571142285 102% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 10.4138276553 115% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 7.30460921844 123% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 24.0651302605 100% => OK
Preposition: 47.0 41.998997996 112% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 8.3376753507 48% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1798.0 1615.20841683 111% => OK
No of words: 329.0 315.596192385 104% => OK
Chars per words: 5.46504559271 5.12529762239 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.25891501996 4.20363070211 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.00194718206 2.80592935109 107% => OK
Unique words: 208.0 176.041082164 118% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.632218844985 0.561755894193 113% => OK
syllable_count: 565.2 506.74238477 112% => 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: 1.0 2.52805611222 40% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.10420841683 95% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 0.809619238477 371% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 2.0 4.76152304609 42% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 16.0721442886 93% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 20.2975951904 103% => OK
Sentence length SD: 56.7096307713 49.4020404114 115% => OK
Chars per sentence: 119.866666667 106.682146367 112% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.9333333333 20.7667163134 106% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.13333333333 7.06120827912 101% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.67935871743 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 3.9879759519 50% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 3.4128256513 88% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.188175763693 0.244688304435 77% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0589173422881 0.084324248473 70% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0572390496831 0.0667982634062 86% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.121444380683 0.151304729494 80% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0568591495883 0.056905535591 100% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.3 13.0946893788 117% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.7 50.2224549098 83% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 11.3001002004 112% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.45 12.4159519038 116% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.43 8.58950901804 110% => OK
difficult_words: 99.0 78.4519038076 126% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 9.78957915832 143% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.1190380762 103% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 10.7795591182 130% => 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.