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?
Over the recent half century, incredible rapid change of the world, even beyond our wildest expectations, owing to the development of science and technology, necessitates adaption with circumstances which its importance doesn't need to be unveiled for anyone. One of the branches which is dramatically eclipsed by pros and cons of technology is interaction among people, alike other aspects of life affected by the advent of technology that accompanies with disputable implications, both positively and negatively.
To begin with, nowadays the positive impacts of modernization on communication are irrefutable. This phenomenon provides a hefty amount of advantages such as pace in communication, especially through the industrialized community, convenience and the ability to create the wider network of connection with surrounding people; the fact that both skeptics to its prevailing pros versus its cons and adherents advocating prevalence of positive implications, alike do concur with that. This development not only affords the possibility of chilling out with acquaintances in the most affordable approach in friends' zone, but affects the communication methods in work atmosphere as well as we can witness most offices use utilities and programs such as slack, email or any kind of online apps to make bond between colleagues to avoid of excessive time consumption.
On the contrary, this phenomenon is fraught of criticism barrage from opponents who opine that preference of online interaction against face-to-face meetings is the natural and instinctive consequence of every advancement in technology which brings convenience, but simultaneously culminates in sedentary lifestyle and artificial connection with dozens of people whose friendship levels are hard to distinguish due to gradual evaporation of distinction boundaries between intimate friends and merely acquaintances. As we can witness the bad situation of psychological attitude of society who suffers from loneliness but apparently seem to have myriad friends or more precisely "social media friends". This group of opponents accuse technology development as the prime culprit.
To sum it up, in my opinion the advantages of technology usage in our lives overshadow the negative inevitable effects of technology on communication in the sense that makes it more convenient, faster and wider than before, hence I agree people contemplating their limitations of tech-usage can take advantages of this technological advance.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 221, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...with circumstances which its importance doesnt need to be unveiled for anyone. One of ...
^^^^^^
Line 8, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ntages of this technological advance.
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
apparently, but, hence, if, so, well, kind of, such as, as well as, in my opinion, on the contrary, to begin with
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: 4.0 7.85571142285 51% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 10.4138276553 144% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 7.30460921844 151% => OK
Pronoun: 22.0 24.0651302605 91% => OK
Preposition: 70.0 41.998997996 167% => OK
Nominalization: 26.0 8.3376753507 312% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2147.0 1615.20841683 133% => OK
No of words: 368.0 315.596192385 117% => OK
Chars per words: 5.83423913043 5.12529762239 114% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.37987740619 4.20363070211 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.40464623151 2.80592935109 121% => OK
Unique words: 229.0 176.041082164 130% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.622282608696 0.561755894193 111% => OK
syllable_count: 695.7 506.74238477 137% => 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: 1.0 2.52805611222 40% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.10420841683 48% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 0.809619238477 247% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 6.0 4.76152304609 126% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 9.0 16.0721442886 56% => 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: 40.0 20.2975951904 197% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 134.601010764 49.4020404114 272% => The lengths of sentences changed so frequently.
Chars per sentence: 238.555555556 106.682146367 224% => Less chars_per_sentence wanted.
Words per sentence: 40.8888888889 20.7667163134 197% => OK
Discourse Markers: 12.5555555556 7.06120827912 178% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.01903807615 40% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.67935871743 81% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 3.9879759519 50% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 3.4128256513 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.223041255728 0.244688304435 91% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0881140092059 0.084324248473 104% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0410608931969 0.0667982634062 61% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.123023594613 0.151304729494 81% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.021368496107 0.056905535591 38% => 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: 26.5 13.0946893788 202% => Automated_readability_index is high.
flesch_reading_ease: 5.5 50.2224549098 11% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 17.1 7.44779559118 230% => Smog_index is high.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 22.4 11.3001002004 198% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 17.42 12.4159519038 140% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 11.33 8.58950901804 132% => OK
difficult_words: 133.0 78.4519038076 170% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 18.0 9.78957915832 184% => OK
gunning_fog: 18.0 10.1190380762 178% => OK
text_standard: 18.0 10.7795591182 167% => 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.