While with the advent of technology, some believe that if the public libraries are to remain, they should offer software, videos or DVDs to their users, others contend libraries should not allocate their restricted resource to such technological facilities.
Some may be under the impression that it is an unreasonable expenditure that libraries spend on high-tech media. However, providing these conveniences can save money significantly, due to e-books take up little space, and they also need to fewer staff members to organize as well. If provided, they would be able to reduce their maintenance and organization cost considerably. a large shelf of a library. Besides, they assert that traditionally a library is a place that shelves many books, and a reader can read or borrow. Although accurate in part, if they are to attract the young generation to reading, providing new resources is crucial. People have become more and more tech-savvy, and they consider it tremendously convenient to use multimedia resources, offering a dynamic combination of images, sounds, videos and virtual tours.
However, once they equip their libraries with new resources, they noticeably mitigate the environmental problems by minimizing logging to produce paper. This way, they importantly prevent deforestation and loss habitat, protecting different species of flora and fauna from extinction danger. Secondly, hard books take up a lot of space, leading to lack of place for updating books. To cite an example, a single DVD can store the entire volume of an Encyclopedia otherwise occupied a significant space. So, if they are to address this problem, using new technological resources would be a useful solution.
Clearly, although offering multimedia resources would be costly for public libraries, offering such facilities are inevitable affordable by reducing hidden costs, and fascinating people to involve in reading.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 10, Rule ID: MASS_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Possible agreement error - use third-person verb forms for singular and mass nouns: 'is'.
Suggestion: is
...uch technological facilities. Some may be under the impression that it is an unre...
^^
Line 2, column 377, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: A
...nce and organization cost considerably. a large shelf of a library. Besides, they...
^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, besides, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, well, while
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 13.1623246493 84% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 7.85571142285 127% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 10.4138276553 106% => OK
Relative clauses : 5.0 7.30460921844 68% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 24.0 24.0651302605 100% => OK
Preposition: 33.0 41.998997996 79% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 8.3376753507 84% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1624.0 1615.20841683 101% => OK
No of words: 294.0 315.596192385 93% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.52380952381 5.12529762239 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.14082457966 4.20363070211 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.05142801333 2.80592935109 109% => OK
Unique words: 186.0 176.041082164 106% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.632653061224 0.561755894193 113% => OK
syllable_count: 516.6 506.74238477 102% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.60771543086 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 5.43587174349 110% => OK
Article: 2.0 2.52805611222 79% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.10420841683 285% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 4.0 0.809619238477 494% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 1.0 4.76152304609 21% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 16.0721442886 87% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 20.2975951904 103% => OK
Sentence length SD: 55.3207714616 49.4020404114 112% => OK
Chars per sentence: 116.0 106.682146367 109% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.0 20.7667163134 101% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.71428571429 7.06120827912 67% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.01903807615 40% => 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: 3.0 3.4128256513 88% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.189239821947 0.244688304435 77% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.057121634964 0.084324248473 68% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0729373047771 0.0667982634062 109% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.130544775051 0.151304729494 86% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0985616704821 0.056905535591 173% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.1 13.0946893788 115% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 33.24 50.2224549098 66% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 11.3001002004 122% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.74 12.4159519038 119% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.05 8.58950901804 117% => OK
difficult_words: 100.0 78.4519038076 127% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.0 9.78957915832 153% => 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.