Nowadays the way 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?
In modern life, technology has been changing people’s interaction. This essay will argue that technology makes an effect on friend’s relationship between people and it, therefore, leads to a drawback of technology’s development.
Developing technology, particularly such as tablets and smartphones, has affected to the way people making friends and keeping in touch. Now, it is easy to communicate between people through social network, such as Facebook or Twitter, so people prefer making friends on these networks rather than in the real life. Moreover, these networks could be accessed on the phones or tablets by installing the application with free-of-charge. Also, due to these advanced technology, a person could talk and see his friends on far distance, they could easily communicate with each other without worrying about how the cost they have to pay if only using phone and call. More than 80% Vietnamese people, for instance, use Facebook to connect with their friends over the world with no cost at all.
However, this development results a big disadvantage because of the growth of isolation. People prefer using texts and social networks than hanging out with their friends. They are likely to shut their open door behind and stay at home without talking in real person with anybody because they feel that they can have interaction of people without truly talking. According to a study of Tokyo University, there are approximately 58% young Japanese adults become isolated people who want to stay at home as long as possible because they can chat with the others without greeting them.
In conclusion, the way people having friends and talking to has changed a lot thanks to the advanced technology, but it could certainly have a negative consequence of increasing people’s isolation.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 61, Rule ID: TO_NON_BASE[1]
Message: The verb after "to" should be in the base form: 'have'.
Suggestion: have
...ay people having friends and talking to has changed a lot thanks to the advanced te...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, however, if, moreover, so, therefore, for instance, in conclusion, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 5.0 13.1623246493 38% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 7.85571142285 89% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 10.4138276553 106% => OK
Relative clauses : 3.0 7.30460921844 41% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 21.0 24.0651302605 87% => OK
Preposition: 49.0 41.998997996 117% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 8.3376753507 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1542.0 1615.20841683 95% => OK
No of words: 289.0 315.596192385 92% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.33564013841 5.12529762239 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.12310562562 4.20363070211 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.95125486756 2.80592935109 105% => OK
Unique words: 171.0 176.041082164 97% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.59169550173 0.561755894193 105% => OK
syllable_count: 462.6 506.74238477 91% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.60771543086 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 5.43587174349 110% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.384769539078 0% => OK
Article: 2.0 2.52805611222 79% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.10420841683 0% => More 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: 24.0 20.2975951904 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 52.0631961071 49.4020404114 105% => OK
Chars per sentence: 128.5 106.682146367 120% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.0833333333 20.7667163134 116% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.08333333333 7.06120827912 100% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.67935871743 58% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 3.9879759519 125% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 3.4128256513 59% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.324258031089 0.244688304435 133% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.121459632746 0.084324248473 144% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.067479360863 0.0667982634062 101% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.192330144673 0.151304729494 127% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0150124701892 0.056905535591 26% => 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: 15.8 13.0946893788 121% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 47.12 50.2224549098 94% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 11.3001002004 112% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.99 12.4159519038 113% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.49 8.58950901804 99% => OK
difficult_words: 67.0 78.4519038076 85% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 9.78957915832 123% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 10.1190380762 115% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 10.7795591182 111% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 67.4157303371 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 6.0 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.