Maintaining public libraries is a waste of money since computer technology is now replacing their functions. To what extent do you agree or disagree
Digitisation has revolutionised the way our world evolves and operates. Computers have replaced a number of manual jobs to automated ones. It has an arena of knowledge based information that are available at the blink of an eye. Even Public libraries are being replaced by computers and to an extent i advocate the thought of refraining from shedding funds towards maintainining these libraries and divulging the funds of other purposes.
Navigating through online sites provides plethora of resourceful facts that are available under one roof. With the functionality of bookmark and restoring links these data can be used for future references too. Introduction of tabs, smartphones, kindle one can carry along the information as well since these are portable and helps people read through during their travel time. Space that is used for libraries can be refurbished and the funds can be diverted for other usages. People would also refrain from printing papers used for publishing these books which acts as an eco friendly move.
Evolutionary inventions at times are not able to justify the culture enjoyed by old ways as defined in the testimony of many people. There are still some valid arguments that challenges the above stated support statements. Search engines being resourceful without any logical reasoning base system at times provide data that can be irrelevant. Filtering is a time consuming and strenuous task. It even causes strain to the eyes. Some people prefer reading books versus scanning through websites. Libraries also have the requisite environment that fosters concentration and engrossment. In London there are many city libraries where people love spending time reading different books and are crowded even during non peak hours. In a library books are stacked in an organised manner to help find data of relevance.
To conclude, though some would prefer spending funds on maintaining public libraries i would disagree witg the notion as the funds can be utilised for other important auxilliary and their ancillary use.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 301, Rule ID: I_LOWERCASE[2]
Message: Did you mean 'I'?
Suggestion: I
... replaced by computers and to an extent i advocate the thought of refraining from...
^
Line 4, column 86, Rule ID: I_LOWERCASE[2]
Message: Did you mean 'I'?
Suggestion: I
...g funds on maintaining public libraries i would disagree witg the notion as the f...
^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, if, so, still, well
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 13.1623246493 137% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 7.85571142285 115% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 10.4138276553 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 7.30460921844 110% => OK
Pronoun: 17.0 24.0651302605 71% => OK
Preposition: 39.0 41.998997996 93% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 8.3376753507 96% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1727.0 1615.20841683 107% => OK
No of words: 325.0 315.596192385 103% => OK
Chars per words: 5.31384615385 5.12529762239 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.24591054749 4.20363070211 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.76663810256 2.80592935109 99% => OK
Unique words: 192.0 176.041082164 109% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.590769230769 0.561755894193 105% => OK
syllable_count: 551.7 506.74238477 109% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 5.43587174349 37% => OK
Article: 0.0 2.52805611222 0% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.10420841683 48% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.76152304609 84% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 16.0721442886 118% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 20.2975951904 84% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 45.5701340695 49.4020404114 92% => OK
Chars per sentence: 90.8947368421 106.682146367 85% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.1052631579 20.7667163134 82% => OK
Discourse Markers: 1.31578947368 7.06120827912 19% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.01903807615 40% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.67935871743 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 3.9879759519 50% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 9.0 3.4128256513 264% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.112324289475 0.244688304435 46% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0303220971071 0.084324248473 36% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0468487493269 0.0667982634062 70% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0824177945118 0.151304729494 54% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0500818267254 0.056905535591 88% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.1 13.0946893788 92% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 45.76 50.2224549098 91% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 11.3001002004 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.22 12.4159519038 106% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.29 8.58950901804 108% => OK
difficult_words: 99.0 78.4519038076 126% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 9.78957915832 107% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.1190380762 87% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.7795591182 83% => 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.