Nowadays the way many people interact with each other has changed because of technology.
In what ways has technology affected the types of relationships people make? Has this become a positive or negative development?
Whether using cutting-edge technologies in our communications and relationships have a respectable influence or not is a controversial argument that people struggling with it; however, these facilities have evolved the way of interaction. Furthermore, some people believe that there are numerous forms of establishing a connection with their merits and downsides.
Technology in the field of communications has been developed by social networking applications. As we know most of the individuals using mobile smartphones with installing at least one social networking application, such as Facebook, Whatsapp, Viber, Telegram, and etc. These new arrival applications have changed the way of relationship in comparison with a decade ago. For example, in 1990, sharing an image or sending an electronic postal card or making a call with your friend far from you looked like a magic trick, and then, we are doing it simply with our smartphones and using the internet network.
Nevertheless, the essential question always leading to a hot debate is that modern technologies have a positive or negative effect on our life. According to scientific evidence, there is no distinguished border between good effect and bad effect of social networking technologies. However, facts and figures report disrupting in the inner manner of under 23 children by exploiting these kinds of technologies. On the contrary, there is lots of evidence which demonstrate the positive impact of technology in eradicating some drawbacks in fostering of children by using productive social applications.
In conclusion, we cannot ignore the impact of technologies in our life and it could be acceptable approaches or harmful achievements. The noticeable landmark is the quality interaction has been altered.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 261, Rule ID: AND_ETC[1]
Message: Use simply 'etc.'.
Suggestion: etc.
...as Facebook, Whatsapp, Viber, Telegram, and etc. These new arrival applications have cha...
^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 428, Rule ID: THERE_S_MANY[3]
Message: Did you mean 'there are lots'?
Suggestion: there are lots
...kinds of technologies. On the contrary, there is lots of evidence which demonstrate the posit...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
furthermore, however, if, look, nevertheless, so, then, at least, for example, in conclusion, such as, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 13.1623246493 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 7.85571142285 25% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 10.4138276553 125% => OK
Relative clauses : 4.0 7.30460921844 55% => OK
Pronoun: 19.0 24.0651302605 79% => OK
Preposition: 39.0 41.998997996 93% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 8.3376753507 108% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1513.0 1615.20841683 94% => OK
No of words: 270.0 315.596192385 86% => OK
Chars per words: 5.6037037037 5.12529762239 109% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.05360046442 4.20363070211 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.37310633762 2.80592935109 120% => OK
Unique words: 165.0 176.041082164 94% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.611111111111 0.561755894193 109% => OK
syllable_count: 476.1 506.74238477 94% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.60771543086 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 5.43587174349 74% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.384769539078 0% => OK
Article: 2.0 2.52805611222 79% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.10420841683 48% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 0.809619238477 247% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 4.76152304609 84% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 16.0721442886 75% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 20.2975951904 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 50.7665544976 49.4020404114 103% => OK
Chars per sentence: 126.083333333 106.682146367 118% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.5 20.7667163134 108% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.83333333333 7.06120827912 139% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.01903807615 40% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.67935871743 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 3.9879759519 75% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 3.4128256513 88% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.178069055358 0.244688304435 73% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0610224486811 0.084324248473 72% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0497480622971 0.0667982634062 74% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0980671452558 0.151304729494 65% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0514442156423 0.056905535591 90% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.2 13.0946893788 124% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 32.22 50.2224549098 64% => It means the essay is relatively harder to read.
smog_index: 11.2 7.44779559118 150% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 11.3001002004 126% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.5 12.4159519038 125% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.11 8.58950901804 118% => OK
difficult_words: 92.0 78.4519038076 117% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 9.78957915832 138% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.1190380762 107% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 10.7795591182 102% => 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.