It is argued that technological advancements in means of communication are resulting in several drawbacks on social interactions. While such improvements can be a barrier to developing communication skills, I believe that they will facilitate users to conduct such activity more easily and effectively.
Undoubtedly, up-to-date technologies can hinder direct contacts among individuals. More specifically, the innovation used in intelligent gadgets such as computers or smartphones allows users to engage in chatting online regardless of time and place instead of taking time and effort to conduct face-to-face appointments. Without regular direct conversation, these individuals may be deprived from opportunities to develop their communicative skills. According to a survey in 2020, Vietnamese students preferred using social media such as Facebook or Zoom to work as a team to having a face-to-face appointment. Consequently, this leads to isolation and loneliness in societies.
However, modern technology enables users to conduct their communication more easily and effectively. Chief of these is that with an internet-connected laptop or smartphone, individuals can keep in touch with their family members and friends in minutes whenever and wherever they want for a cheap fee. In the past, conversely, people had to take longer to conduct such communication with the usage of letters or phones being charged quite a huge amount of fee. Additional, up-to-date technology has improved communication methods at the workplace. These days, workers communicate with clients and colleagues quickly via email while it took much longer in the past with the use of paper letters, telephones or having to organize a face-to-face meeting requiring time and effort. As a result, this can contribute to increasing work performance and outcomes.
In conclusion, while it is acknowledged that advanced technology can bring about isolation and loneliness to societies by disencouraging people from having face-to-face conversation, I maintain optimistic that its potential to facilitate effective and efficient communication methods outweigh the drawbacks. I am also convinced that judicious utilization of these improvements for genuine needs can lead to the maximum benefits for users.
Essay evaluations by e-grader
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, consequently, conversely, however, if, may, so, while, in conclusion, such as, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 7.0 13.1623246493 53% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 7.85571142285 102% => OK
Conjunction : 17.0 10.4138276553 163% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 7.30460921844 82% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 24.0651302605 100% => OK
Preposition: 59.0 41.998997996 140% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 8.3376753507 168% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1949.0 1615.20841683 121% => OK
No of words: 334.0 315.596192385 106% => OK
Chars per words: 5.83532934132 5.12529762239 114% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.27500489853 4.20363070211 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.46717575038 2.80592935109 124% => OK
Unique words: 195.0 176.041082164 111% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.583832335329 0.561755894193 104% => OK
syllable_count: 622.8 506.74238477 123% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.9 1.60771543086 118% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 5.43587174349 147% => OK
Article: 1.0 2.52805611222 40% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.10420841683 143% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.76152304609 126% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 16.0721442886 93% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 20.2975951904 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 66.5488959755 49.4020404114 135% => OK
Chars per sentence: 129.933333333 106.682146367 122% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.2666666667 20.7667163134 107% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.73333333333 7.06120827912 95% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.67935871743 92% => 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: 0.158019483215 0.244688304435 65% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0574128032294 0.084324248473 68% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0371649445559 0.0667982634062 56% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.097443338592 0.151304729494 64% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0381305431867 0.056905535591 67% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.2 13.0946893788 131% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 23.77 50.2224549098 47% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 13.0 7.44779559118 175% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.4 11.3001002004 136% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.89 12.4159519038 136% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.02 8.58950901804 117% => OK
difficult_words: 112.0 78.4519038076 143% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 9.78957915832 143% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.1190380762 107% => OK
text_standard: 17.0 10.7795591182 158% => 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.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, consequently, conversely, however, if, may, so, while, in conclusion, such as, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 7.0 13.1623246493 53% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 7.85571142285 102% => OK
Conjunction : 17.0 10.4138276553 163% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 7.30460921844 82% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 24.0651302605 100% => OK
Preposition: 59.0 41.998997996 140% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 8.3376753507 168% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1949.0 1615.20841683 121% => OK
No of words: 334.0 315.596192385 106% => OK
Chars per words: 5.83532934132 5.12529762239 114% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.27500489853 4.20363070211 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.46717575038 2.80592935109 124% => OK
Unique words: 195.0 176.041082164 111% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.583832335329 0.561755894193 104% => OK
syllable_count: 622.8 506.74238477 123% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.9 1.60771543086 118% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 5.43587174349 147% => OK
Article: 1.0 2.52805611222 40% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.10420841683 143% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.76152304609 126% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 16.0721442886 93% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 20.2975951904 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 66.5488959755 49.4020404114 135% => OK
Chars per sentence: 129.933333333 106.682146367 122% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.2666666667 20.7667163134 107% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.73333333333 7.06120827912 95% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.67935871743 92% => 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: 0.158019483215 0.244688304435 65% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0574128032294 0.084324248473 68% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0371649445559 0.0667982634062 56% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.097443338592 0.151304729494 64% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0381305431867 0.056905535591 67% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.2 13.0946893788 131% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 23.77 50.2224549098 47% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 13.0 7.44779559118 175% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.4 11.3001002004 136% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.89 12.4159519038 136% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.02 8.58950901804 117% => OK
difficult_words: 112.0 78.4519038076 143% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 9.78957915832 143% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.1190380762 107% => OK
text_standard: 17.0 10.7795591182 158% => 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.