Some people believe that the range of technology available is increasing the gap between the rich and poor in the world. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this view?
What can wealthier societies do to help poor people?
Globally, the issue of whether the discrepancy between wealthy people and those who are underprivileged is growing due to technology has been debated for many years. Some people believe that the gap becomes wider, while this essay argues that the availability of technology actually has narrowed it for two reasons. Firstly, it is easier for the poor to afford products. Secondly, unwealthy people can acquire information as the rich do.
To begin with, it is affordable for ordinary people to enjoy the fruitful outcomes brought by the development of technology. Costumers, regardless of their savings, have similar options in terms of appliances, electric cars and digital devices thanks to technological growth. For instance, billionaires like Elon Musk are using the same iPhone as a university student have. In this case, the same services and products that the rich and the poor are able to enjoy narrow the difference between the two groups of people.
In addition, information and knowledge become transparent and accessible with the help of advanced technology. To be more detailed, the possibility of learning from the internet with minimal costs or even without charge enables all people to self-educate. In China, for example, those who cannot afford to study abroad now are able to learn on YouTube where they can find valuable English courses. Thus, poor people can equip themselves with knowledge and skills that used to be a privilege for rich people before the development of technology.
This essay has argued that the accessibility of technology is closing the difference between the indigent and the wealthy for two reasons, namely the same products and knowledge that they can assess. All over the world, wealthier societies can pay higher taxes to leverage the imbalance of income gaps and to help poorer areas.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, first, firstly, if, second, secondly, so, thus, while, for example, for instance, in addition, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 13.1623246493 84% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 7.85571142285 76% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 10.4138276553 106% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 7.30460921844 123% => OK
Pronoun: 18.0 24.0651302605 75% => OK
Preposition: 42.0 41.998997996 100% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 8.3376753507 108% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1554.0 1615.20841683 96% => OK
No of words: 295.0 315.596192385 93% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.26779661017 5.12529762239 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.14434120667 4.20363070211 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.80217012796 2.80592935109 100% => OK
Unique words: 168.0 176.041082164 95% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.569491525424 0.561755894193 101% => OK
syllable_count: 491.4 506.74238477 97% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 5.43587174349 74% => OK
Article: 3.0 2.52805611222 119% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.10420841683 48% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.76152304609 105% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 16.0721442886 87% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 20.2975951904 103% => OK
Sentence length SD: 36.7912617176 49.4020404114 74% => OK
Chars per sentence: 111.0 106.682146367 104% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.0714285714 20.7667163134 101% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.42857142857 7.06120827912 119% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.67935871743 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 3.9879759519 50% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.288935920602 0.244688304435 118% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0968915177189 0.084324248473 115% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0673973275218 0.0667982634062 101% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.172757427056 0.151304729494 114% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0612273502447 0.056905535591 108% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.9 13.0946893788 106% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.7 50.2224549098 83% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 11.3001002004 112% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.29 12.4159519038 107% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.17 8.58950901804 107% => OK
difficult_words: 84.0 78.4519038076 107% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 9.78957915832 92% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.1190380762 103% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.7795591182 83% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 78.6516853933 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.0 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.