Maintaining public libraries is a waste of money since there is computer technology. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Some people hold the view that in this era of technological advancements, it is no longer for the government to allocate resources to maintaining traditional libraries. In my opinion, whereas it is true in some respects, libraries still have a crucial role to play in this modern world.
On the one hand, with rapid progress in smartphone and computer engineering, it has become less time-consuming for users to acquire knowledge. In other words, in earlier times, people used to spend a lot of time looking for relevant materials to support their study in the library. These days, nevertheless, with search engines on the Internet, people could gain access to any sources of information at the click of a button, which is especially convenient for busy workers in today’s hectic life. Furthermore, if e-libraries are promoted on a large scale, the expenses for libraries to function properly will be reduced substantially. As a result, more money could be contributed to other important fields such as education, medicine, and science.
On the other hand, I also believe that public libraries are of great significance. Firstly, physical libraries provide much more reliable sources of data. This is because before books are published, they must undergo strict censorship conducted by experts to ensure the accuracy of written information. Information on the Internet, in contrast, can sometimes be misleading and untrustworthy as there is no restriction to people’s activities on the virtual platform. Secondly, traditional libraries bring about a feeling of motivation. For example, the ambiance and professional atmosphere of many libraries make students concentrate better on their study, which is extremely useful when they want to carry out a research project or complete a graduate thesis.
By way of conclusion, while I agree that technology has brought about some advantages, physical libraries do have their own beneficial impacts and therefore should not be removed in the future.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, furthermore, if, look, nevertheless, second, secondly, so, still, therefore, whereas, while, for example, in contrast, such as, as a result, in my opinion, in other words, it is true, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 13.1623246493 99% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 7.85571142285 76% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 10.4138276553 58% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 6.0 7.30460921844 82% => OK
Pronoun: 18.0 24.0651302605 75% => OK
Preposition: 49.0 41.998997996 117% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 8.3376753507 132% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1687.0 1615.20841683 104% => OK
No of words: 313.0 315.596192385 99% => OK
Chars per words: 5.38977635783 5.12529762239 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.20616286096 4.20363070211 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.12416613011 2.80592935109 111% => OK
Unique words: 200.0 176.041082164 114% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.638977635783 0.561755894193 114% => OK
syllable_count: 532.8 506.74238477 105% => 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: 2.0 2.52805611222 79% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.10420841683 143% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 0.809619238477 124% => OK
Preposition: 9.0 4.76152304609 189% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 16.0721442886 87% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 20.2975951904 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 47.6695684384 49.4020404114 96% => OK
Chars per sentence: 120.5 106.682146367 113% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.3571428571 20.7667163134 108% => OK
Discourse Markers: 16.2857142857 7.06120827912 231% => Less transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.67935871743 127% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 3.9879759519 50% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 3.4128256513 29% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.136288319382 0.244688304435 56% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0442003354962 0.084324248473 52% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0388988204574 0.0667982634062 58% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0835505321498 0.151304729494 55% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0282812988153 0.056905535591 50% => 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: 15.1 13.0946893788 115% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 40.69 50.2224549098 81% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.1 11.3001002004 116% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.28 12.4159519038 115% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.97 8.58950901804 116% => OK
difficult_words: 104.0 78.4519038076 133% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 9.78957915832 112% => 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.