Some people think that the range of technology currently available is increasing the gap between rich people and poor people. Others think that it is causing the opposite effect.
Discuss both views and give your own opinion.
Technological advancements have been thought to differentiate the rich from the poor, whilst others may think that they are bridging the gap between the two groups of people. Thus many reasons and arguments have been given to support each stance, and this essay will delve into both sides and present a personal view point.
On the one hand, the advent and widespread growth of technology has played a substantial role in mitigating economic inequality. To elaborate, it is owing to inventions in a wide range of job sectors that facilitate people in accomplishing the tasks with the use of machinery equipment. Not only does it reduce human dependency on such external factors as weather and limited labor force, but it also maximizes efficiency so that time is well-spent on developing extra jobs, which enriches people’s lives financially.
On the other hand, that technology has been widespread also puts a heavy toll on widening the gap between wealthy and needy people. Despite the fact that many state-of-the-art machines are introduced, some of them are still out of a indigent/impoverished/destitute person’s price range, or in other words, poor people could hardly afford such expensive machinery. This, in turns, may lead to the needy going penniless, meanwhile assisting entrepreneurial people to become more prosperous individuals.
Considering the aforementioned paradoxical effects on different economic backgrounds, I personally maintain and appreciate the positive side of high-tech deployment. To substantiate, the twenty-first century gives human tremendous growth in technology, which aims at providing people with a quality life. Bearing the truth that some devices are costly, it cannot be denied that technology is progressing continuously, which enables itself to approach more low-income families.
To sum up, technological inventions allow poor people to root out manual work and thrive towards bettering their own living standards. To put it another way, that technology has done more harm than good in resolving discrimination between the rich and poor could be considered an extreme fallacy.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 176, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
...e gap between the two groups of people. Thus many reasons and arguments have been gi...
^^^^
Line 5, column 232, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'an' instead of 'a' if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g. 'an article', 'an hour'
Suggestion: an
...troduced, some of them are still out of a indigent/impoverished/destitute person’...
^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, if, may, so, still, thus, well, while, in other words, to sum up, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 13.1623246493 91% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 7.85571142285 76% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 10.4138276553 106% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 7.30460921844 151% => OK
Pronoun: 19.0 24.0651302605 79% => OK
Preposition: 44.0 41.998997996 105% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 8.3376753507 36% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1812.0 1615.20841683 112% => OK
No of words: 325.0 315.596192385 103% => OK
Chars per words: 5.57538461538 5.12529762239 109% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.24591054749 4.20363070211 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.40724463113 2.80592935109 121% => OK
Unique words: 212.0 176.041082164 120% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.652307692308 0.561755894193 116% => OK
syllable_count: 559.8 506.74238477 110% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 5.43587174349 92% => OK
Article: 2.0 2.52805611222 79% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.10420841683 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 3.0 0.809619238477 371% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 9.0 4.76152304609 189% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 16.0721442886 81% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 25.0 20.2975951904 123% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 33.4545527633 49.4020404114 68% => OK
Chars per sentence: 139.384615385 106.682146367 131% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.0 20.7667163134 120% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.76923076923 7.06120827912 110% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.38176352705 114% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.01903807615 40% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.67935871743 104% => 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: 0.287622998634 0.244688304435 118% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0828775662538 0.084324248473 98% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0456294061399 0.0667982634062 68% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.136120139457 0.151304729494 90% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0306968565122 0.056905535591 54% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.4 13.0946893788 133% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 37.64 50.2224549098 75% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.44779559118 150% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 11.3001002004 126% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.38 12.4159519038 124% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.54 8.58950901804 111% => OK
difficult_words: 96.0 78.4519038076 122% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.5 9.78957915832 158% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 10.1190380762 119% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 10.7795591182 111% => 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.