Some people believe that technology has made the lives of workers easier while other people disagree.
To what extent do you agree or disagree
Technological revolution has been the contemporary trend for more than a decade. Consequently, this raises the question of whether computer assistants have positive implications on employees' lives. Notwithstanding the fact that the majority of the society opposes this view, I wholeheartedly support this argument.
There is conspicuous evidence interpreting why people believe in their views. Those defendants usually debate that modern technology is incompatible for the bulk of the working labour because they are predominantly accustomed to the conventional conditions, manufacturing processes and trading patterns. The circumstances can be noteworthy when taking senior workers into consideration who are unknowledgeable of the current machinery methods. Inevitably, training expenditure is compulsory; therefore, this trend imposes a heavy financial burden on the mentioned entities.
On the contrary, as far as I am concerned, technology can escalate lives of workers in different positive directions. First and foremost, support from modern machines can noticeably reduce threats posed to the manual forces since they are responsible for the heavy workloads. As a result, manual workers will be released from burdensome conditions and transferred to safer positions. In addition to this, a computerized workplace helps propagate a company's income and staff's remuneration. Conventional marketing positions are often cited to illustrate this statement primarily because technologies are able to predict and assist employees to potential customers at the most explicit and appropriate moments which enables contracts more likely to be made between entities.
To put things in a nutshell, although many people believe that harsh conditions are associated with introducing modern machines to workplaces, I would defend that this can be conductive in several ways. I recommend that national authorities should invest noticeably in technological progress to accumulate more friendly up-to-date facilities which are easy to be utilized.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 108, Rule ID: WHETHER[3]
Message: Wordiness: Shorten this phrase to the shortest possible suggestion.
Suggestion: whether; the question whether
...han a decade. Consequently, this raises the question of whether computer assistants have positive impli...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
consequently, first, if, so, therefore, in addition, as a result, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 13.1623246493 122% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 7.85571142285 89% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 10.4138276553 58% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 9.0 7.30460921844 123% => OK
Pronoun: 20.0 24.0651302605 83% => OK
Preposition: 34.0 41.998997996 81% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 8.3376753507 96% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1756.0 1615.20841683 109% => OK
No of words: 290.0 315.596192385 92% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 6.05517241379 5.12529762239 118% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.12666770723 4.20363070211 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.3568996511 2.80592935109 120% => OK
Unique words: 188.0 176.041082164 107% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.648275862069 0.561755894193 115% => OK
syllable_count: 559.8 506.74238477 110% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.9 1.60771543086 118% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 5.43587174349 110% => OK
Article: 2.0 2.52805611222 79% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.10420841683 143% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.76152304609 63% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 16.0721442886 87% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 20.2975951904 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 55.9737547828 49.4020404114 113% => OK
Chars per sentence: 125.428571429 106.682146367 118% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.7142857143 20.7667163134 100% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.78571428571 7.06120827912 82% => 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 : 3.0 3.9879759519 75% => 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: 0.102996837673 0.244688304435 42% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0353701443843 0.084324248473 42% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0392094003794 0.0667982634062 59% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0596776675157 0.151304729494 39% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0244218123858 0.056905535591 43% => 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: 17.5 13.0946893788 134% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 25.8 50.2224549098 51% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 11.2 7.44779559118 150% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.6 11.3001002004 129% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 17.87 12.4159519038 144% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.94 8.58950901804 127% => OK
difficult_words: 116.0 78.4519038076 148% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 9.78957915832 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.1190380762 99% => OK
text_standard: 18.0 10.7795591182 167% => 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.