Medical technology can increase life expectancy. Is it a blessing or curse?
Recently modern medical practices and its corresponding impact have sparked a heated debate. Although contested by many that the matter of increased lifetime is highly beneficial, such issue is regarded both thoroughly constructive and positive by a substantial number of individuals. I am inclined to believe that longer life span can be a plus, and I will analyze that throughout this essay.
From a social standpoint, technological medicines can provide the society with some noticeable effects which are rooted in the fact that merits of advanced medical devices, as well as high-tech medical inventions, are inextricably bound up. According to my own experience, when I was a university student, I performed a medical experiment which discovered lifetime enhancement strategies. Thus, beneficial ramifications of both living longer and state-of-the-are medical tools apparently can be seen.
Whithin the realm of science, lifespan development analysis might increase the consequences of an aging population. Moreover, fundamental aspects of medical progression could relate to this reality that the demerits of more elderly people pertain to younger generations. As a tangible example, some medical research undertaken by a prestigious medical department has asserted that the downside of higher aging rates is correlated negatively with more skilled medical practitioners. Hence, it is correct to presume the preconceived notion of aging workforce.
To conclude, while there are several compelling arguments on both sides, I profoundly believe that the benefits of advancements in medical experiences far outweigh its drawbacks. Not only do the advantages of life expectancy improvements prove the significance of living more years but also pinpoint aging issues implications.
Votes
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, apparently, but, hence, if, moreover, so, thus, well, while, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 13.1623246493 84% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 7.85571142285 76% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 10.4138276553 48% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 10.0 7.30460921844 137% => OK
Pronoun: 18.0 24.0651302605 75% => OK
Preposition: 31.0 41.998997996 74% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 8.3376753507 96% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1539.0 1615.20841683 95% => OK
No of words: 263.0 315.596192385 83% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.85171102662 5.12529762239 114% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.02706775958 4.20363070211 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.29967050945 2.80592935109 118% => OK
Unique words: 177.0 176.041082164 101% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.673003802281 0.561755894193 120% => OK
syllable_count: 495.0 506.74238477 98% => 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: 0.0 2.52805611222 0% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.10420841683 238% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 0.809619238477 124% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.76152304609 63% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 16.0721442886 75% => 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: 21.0 20.2975951904 103% => OK
Sentence length SD: 47.9693188982 49.4020404114 97% => OK
Chars per sentence: 128.25 106.682146367 120% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.9166666667 20.7667163134 106% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.41666666667 7.06120827912 91% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.67935871743 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 3.9879759519 25% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 3.4128256513 147% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.255091436519 0.244688304435 104% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0735089209049 0.084324248473 87% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0415535340864 0.0667982634062 62% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.131950940538 0.151304729494 87% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0271268673026 0.056905535591 48% => 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: 17.1 13.0946893788 131% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 24.78 50.2224549098 49% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 11.2 7.44779559118 150% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.0 11.3001002004 133% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.65 12.4159519038 134% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 11.22 8.58950901804 131% => OK
difficult_words: 109.0 78.4519038076 139% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 9.78957915832 148% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.1190380762 103% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 10.7795591182 139% => 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.