Citizens have sparked off an argument over information technology, in which it is believed to replace traditional libraries due to financial reasons. While I accept that technological advancements play a pivotal role in reading, I believe that public reading space should be maintained.
On the one hand, technological breakthroughs in computer are considered more efficient than casual libraries due to two major reasons. To begin with, digitalized libraries provide citizens with a higher accessibility. Indeed, since data is entirely computerized and displayed on website or social media, residents can look up their essential materials, regardless of improper time or long distance. In addition, it is safe to say that applying information technology, libraries become more financially effective. Specifically, in computerized libraries, employees are superseded by machines and automatic procedures, and this may help reduce maintenance cost thanks to a smaller labor dimension.
On the other hand, the preservation of traditional libraries also exerts certain positive impacts, especially on readers. Particularly, in casual public reading locations, citizens can immerse themselves in an academic space and totally focus on their printed materials, which were proved to result in a more productive perception, compared to using computerized ones. For example, a recent survey conducted among British adolescents reveals that 70% of total population had a better grasp of a certain topic when they read paper books rather than electronic data. In other words, not only do traditional libraries merely provide residents with sufficient resources but also create an environment conducive for study and research. By contrast, if readers entirely rely on e-books, their concentration may waiver due to other available online contents, leading to a less efficient study.
Briefly, while not disavowing the benefits of computer technology, I opine that public libraries should not be eradicated thanks to their advantages.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 151, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... eradicated thanks to their advantages.
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, briefly, but, if, look, may, so, while, for example, in addition, in other words, to begin with, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 13.1623246493 61% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 7.85571142285 76% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 10.4138276553 77% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 7.30460921844 110% => OK
Pronoun: 17.0 24.0651302605 71% => OK
Preposition: 41.0 41.998997996 98% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 8.3376753507 132% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1737.0 1615.20841683 108% => OK
No of words: 297.0 315.596192385 94% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.84848484848 5.12529762239 114% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.15134772569 4.20363070211 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.19999971658 2.80592935109 114% => OK
Unique words: 190.0 176.041082164 108% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.639730639731 0.561755894193 114% => OK
syllable_count: 557.1 506.74238477 110% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.9 1.60771543086 118% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 5.43587174349 74% => OK
Article: 2.0 2.52805611222 79% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.10420841683 190% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 0.809619238477 124% => OK
Preposition: 10.0 4.76152304609 210% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 16.0721442886 81% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 22.0 20.2975951904 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 39.665017452 49.4020404114 80% => OK
Chars per sentence: 133.615384615 106.682146367 125% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.8461538462 20.7667163134 110% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.23076923077 7.06120827912 131% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.67935871743 104% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 3.9879759519 50% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 3.4128256513 59% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.127539971413 0.244688304435 52% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.045310332849 0.084324248473 54% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0375813152106 0.0667982634062 56% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0852710002241 0.151304729494 56% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0245544310883 0.056905535591 43% => 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: 17.5 13.0946893788 134% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 23.77 50.2224549098 47% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 11.2 7.44779559118 150% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.4 11.3001002004 136% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.95 12.4159519038 137% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.79 8.58950901804 126% => OK
difficult_words: 114.0 78.4519038076 145% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 9.78957915832 123% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.1190380762 107% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 10.7795591182 102% => 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.