Some people believe that having instant messaging apps (like WhatsApp or Viber) on our smartphones has improved our communication. Others feel that it has only damaged the way we communicate.
Discuss both vies and give your own opinion.
With the commercial advent of the Internet and mobile phones in the late 1900’s, the instant messaging apps have achieved increasing prevalence in our society. However, while some believe that they allow us to communicate better, I agree with those who feel that they have harmed our interpersonal communication.
On the one hand, being able to send messages instantly between smartphones has advanced our communication in certain respects. The greatest benefit of instant messaging is its cost, with most apps allowing messages to be sent for free when connected to Wi-Fi. Consequently, people are able to send a much higher volume of messages today than in the past. Moreover, as instant messaging is a silent form of communication, it allows people to retain connectable at all times. If your phone rings in a lecture hall or theatre, it is impossible to answer, but you can still and receive texts without causing a disturbance.
However, there are arguments to suggest that instant messaging has negatively impacted our communication. One issue is that people tend to favor writing short texts over real face-to-face conversations. Although it may be possible to carry out a conversation in message forms alone, the quality of this conversation would be far lower than one conducted in person. Even worse, short written messages may be lost or twisted. However, the most damaging aspect of instant messaging is the impact it is having on our written skills. Texts use mind-boggling combinations of letters and numbers to convey meaning, and these abbreviations are having a detrimental impact on the language skills of young people today, who are often unable to spell or form grammatically correct sentences.
To sum up, although it is undeniable that instant messaging is a cheap way to communicate, it has led to a whole generation being less able to express themselves clearly. Therefore, on balance, I believe that apps like Viber and WhatsApp do not represent an advance in communication but a hindrance.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, consequently, however, if, may, moreover, so, still, therefore, while, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 13.1623246493 137% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 7.85571142285 51% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 10.4138276553 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 7.30460921844 123% => OK
Pronoun: 29.0 24.0651302605 121% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 48.0 41.998997996 114% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 8.3376753507 156% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1702.0 1615.20841683 105% => OK
No of words: 327.0 315.596192385 104% => OK
Chars per words: 5.20489296636 5.12529762239 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.25242769721 4.20363070211 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.05825687691 2.80592935109 109% => OK
Unique words: 194.0 176.041082164 110% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.593272171254 0.561755894193 106% => OK
syllable_count: 532.8 506.74238477 105% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.60771543086 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 5.43587174349 92% => OK
Article: 4.0 2.52805611222 158% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.10420841683 238% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 0.809619238477 247% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 5.0 4.76152304609 105% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 16.0721442886 87% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 20.2975951904 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 49.0749634826 49.4020404114 99% => OK
Chars per sentence: 121.571428571 106.682146367 114% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.3571428571 20.7667163134 112% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.07142857143 7.06120827912 86% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.67935871743 81% => OK
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: 0.2946854012 0.244688304435 120% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.102643846285 0.084324248473 122% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.070243737149 0.0667982634062 105% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.180722152257 0.151304729494 119% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0359158037698 0.056905535591 63% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.7 13.0946893788 112% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.13 50.2224549098 96% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 11.3001002004 109% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.18 12.4159519038 106% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.83 8.58950901804 103% => OK
difficult_words: 84.0 78.4519038076 107% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 9.78957915832 143% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.1190380762 111% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.7795591182 83% => 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.