Technology provides us a lot of means to communicate. But now that people have the ability to talk to each other in a wider variety of methods, our communication and social abilities have taken a step back.
Why does technological advance hurt nontechnical communication?
How can we solve this problem?
Despite the innovation of different communication’s methods humanity has faced a decrease in face-to-face contacts. In this regard an opinion exists that modern society has lost the ability to build strong social ties. This essay will discuss the root reasons for the dramatically fall of intercommunication these days and propose possible solutions.
To my mind, the two main causes of the issue are the wasting time on useless activities and the irregularity of live communication. Firstly, wide access to various sources of information has defocused attention on the important. According to the research made by British scientists, modern man fails in observing time balance. Secondly, mail, different messengers and other devices create the illusion of a relationship. According to the research of the newspaper The Post, virtual communication does not satisfy all needs, as a result of which people experience deprivation.
In my opinion, the problems can be solved by minimizing the use of devices such as mobile phones and internet and by making habitual the maintenance of existing connections. Firstly, in computers, smartphones and tablets is built in a function of fixing the maximum allowable time for using a particular application. According to the research of the agency Gallup, by controlling the time of using programs, average person exempts from 2 to 6 hours per day. Secondly, the regularity of social interaction is determined by the conscious formation of a behavior model. The research on habit formation suggests that new neural connections responsible for the presence of a behavior pattern are formed in 21 days of repeating an action.
To sum up, technologies has brought some positive development in the life but also an obvious need for responsible time consumption and released time should be used for the socialization. Consciously controlling the composition and frequency of social activities, the lack of interpersonal communication will be filled.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 464, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...cording to the research of the newspaper The Post, virtual communication does not...
^^
Line 6, column 15, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...xperience deprivation. In my opinion, the problems can be solved by minimizing...
^^
Line 6, column 184, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...enance of existing connections. Firstly, in computers, smartphones and tablets is...
^^
Line 6, column 329, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...sing a particular application. According to the research of the agency Gallup, by...
^^
Line 6, column 434, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...f using programs, average person exempts from 2 to 6 hours per day. Secondly, the...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, if, second, secondly, so, such as, as a result, in my opinion, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 7.0 13.1623246493 53% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 7.85571142285 64% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 10.4138276553 86% => OK
Relative clauses : 3.0 7.30460921844 41% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 7.0 24.0651302605 29% => OK
Preposition: 47.0 41.998997996 112% => OK
Nominalization: 21.0 8.3376753507 252% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1689.0 1615.20841683 105% => OK
No of words: 307.0 315.596192385 97% => OK
Chars per words: 5.5016286645 5.12529762239 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.18585898806 4.20363070211 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.32013713454 2.80592935109 118% => OK
Unique words: 186.0 176.041082164 106% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.605863192182 0.561755894193 108% => OK
syllable_count: 531.9 506.74238477 105% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 5.43587174349 18% => OK
Article: 5.0 2.52805611222 198% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.10420841683 48% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 9.0 4.76152304609 189% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 16.0721442886 93% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 20.2975951904 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 28.7167005223 49.4020404114 58% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 112.6 106.682146367 106% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.4666666667 20.7667163134 99% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.6 7.06120827912 93% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 5.01903807615 100% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.67935871743 92% => 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: 0.0844711940558 0.244688304435 35% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0260679970283 0.084324248473 31% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0324199783061 0.0667982634062 49% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0522338506132 0.151304729494 35% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0265546162934 0.056905535591 47% => 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: 14.7 13.0946893788 112% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 42.72 50.2224549098 85% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.44779559118 150% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 11.3001002004 109% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.62 12.4159519038 118% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.23 8.58950901804 119% => OK
difficult_words: 109.0 78.4519038076 139% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 9.78957915832 107% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.1190380762 99% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 10.7795591182 102% => 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.