The range of technology available to people is increasing the gap between the rich and the poor. Others think it has an opposite effect. Discuss both views and give your opinions.
There is an undeniable fact that over a quarter of our population are behind the great technological wave. A group of people have blamed technology to be the core factor that led to the ever-widening social class distinctions while the others, on the contrary, believe that the achievements developed based on technology could bring humans together. There are both pros and cons of these viewpoints that I will discuss in this essay.
As the individuals who are not able to adapt the changes will be left behind on the path of evolution, the lower-income earners will be the first targets to be lagged behind in the world dominated by the technological wave. On the economic front, the maximum-income figure estimated about one dollar per day is the biggest obstacle that restricts the poor to join the technological world since it takes them years to save enough money to buy a computer or a smartphone for their own. Besides, those who inhabit in remote areas or in less-developed countries are hardly have the opportunity to approach to technological innovations, or even worse, they virtually have no concept of the internet. Furthermore, humans are using technological devices, specifically smartphone, as a measure of our true values. For example, those who possess low-cost smartphones could feel less attractive than the others, or even could self-underestimate their core values just because they have yet afforded a famous brand-name phone. These realities are obviously the constraints of the technological applications available to us.
Conversely, technology has a great potential power to connect the world. It was a long path from Morse code to the internet for humans to speak the same language: the binary language. Driven by the power of the internet built on binary-based, we are brought together than ever before. For instance, people could easily capture the situation of an earthquake that occurred halfway around the earth only by surfing the internet. Furthermore, the sponsors could easily donate to these victims through internet banking account just by a click, even if they are cooking at home. Another power of technology is to raise the empathy among people. For example, driven by the power of media, a person could raise fund for a group of inhabitants who lived in the most remote area on earth by his presence on televised broadcast.
In conclusion, there are numerous reasons to share the concern that the gap among social classes would be widened by the rise of technological devices. I do, however, believe in a bright prospect that the more the technology could develop, the more human could empathize with each other.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 570, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'had'.
Suggestion: had
... in less-developed countries are hardly have the opportunity to approach to technolo...
^^^^
Line 5, column 822, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... his presence on televised broadcast. In conclusion, there are numerous reason...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 290, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...human could empathize with each other.
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
besides, conversely, first, furthermore, however, if, so, while, for example, for instance, in conclusion, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 13.1623246493 137% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 7.85571142285 153% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 10.4138276553 58% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 12.0 7.30460921844 164% => OK
Pronoun: 29.0 24.0651302605 121% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 66.0 41.998997996 157% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 8.3376753507 60% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2240.0 1615.20841683 139% => OK
No of words: 435.0 315.596192385 138% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.14942528736 5.12529762239 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.56690854021 4.20363070211 109% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.98022194085 2.80592935109 106% => OK
Unique words: 238.0 176.041082164 135% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.547126436782 0.561755894193 97% => OK
syllable_count: 716.4 506.74238477 141% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.60771543086 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 5.43587174349 129% => OK
Article: 6.0 2.52805611222 237% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 3.0 2.10420841683 143% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 0.809619238477 247% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 4.76152304609 63% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 16.0721442886 112% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 20.2975951904 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 58.6820266088 49.4020404114 119% => OK
Chars per sentence: 124.444444444 106.682146367 117% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.1666666667 20.7667163134 116% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.77777777778 7.06120827912 96% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.01903807615 60% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.67935871743 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 3.9879759519 100% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 3.4128256513 176% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.111446871319 0.244688304435 46% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0387523475045 0.084324248473 46% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0296292153173 0.0667982634062 44% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0765851415122 0.151304729494 51% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.031866201598 0.056905535591 56% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.9 13.0946893788 114% => 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: 12.89 12.4159519038 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.96 8.58950901804 104% => OK
difficult_words: 114.0 78.4519038076 145% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.5 9.78957915832 158% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 10.1190380762 115% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 10.7795591182 121% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 73.0337078652 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 6.5 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.