The use of mobile phones should be banned in public places like libraries and shops. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Time flies, proving the unshaken role of the mobile phone, one of the most grandiose inventions of mankind. There, however, has been emerging that the overdependence of phone owners has sparked the discourse as to why using phones in public areas is no longer allowed. I am of the opposite outlook owing to the woeful implications from late response to unexpected and urgent situations and the conspicuous benefits to users.
Admittedly, without the lightweight and compact device of communication, everything turns to be late to be addressed. It is perceptible that the ultimate purpose of employing phones is to exchange information in the swiftest way from which grave problems are fully transmitted without a second delay. Once users miss an important phone call, they may endure catastrophic repercussions, and it can cost them a life to regret. There used to be a grievous story of a little poor girl being kidnapped and murdered soon afterwards in Korea. A piece of information leaked out in social media signified that she tried several times to call her dad to be rescued, unfortunately he was in a formal meeting. Therefore, he had to decline the calls, which still haunted him at length.
Furthermore, smart phones with artificial intelligence can assist people when there is a lack of available facilities. It is a true fact that users are able to search for any kinds of information or make a payment at ease by utilizing applications set up in a phone. There are myriad responses from students frequenting libraries for learning purposes that they are not able to use computers since all of them are occupied so that they have to wait in a very long queue. This unsatisfied experience deters them from coming to libraries. By contrast, if students are permitted to use phones, on no account will this situation be to transpire now that they can do it by searching on their own phones. Another advantage of carrying phones is any transaction can be conducted within a second of time by online banking account. This suggests that carrying cash is unnecessary, which can not only save time but also lessen the crime rate.
By way of conclusion, legislating the law to stop people from using phones in public is not a wise choice.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, furthermore, however, if, look, may, second, so, still, therefore, as to
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 23.0 13.1623246493 175% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 7.85571142285 89% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 10.4138276553 58% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 16.0 7.30460921844 219% => Less relative clauses wanted (maybe 'which' is over used).
Pronoun: 27.0 24.0651302605 112% => OK
Preposition: 64.0 41.998997996 152% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 8.3376753507 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1871.0 1615.20841683 116% => OK
No of words: 381.0 315.596192385 121% => OK
Chars per words: 4.91076115486 5.12529762239 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.41805628031 4.20363070211 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.89871456657 2.80592935109 103% => OK
Unique words: 233.0 176.041082164 132% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.61154855643 0.561755894193 109% => OK
syllable_count: 596.7 506.74238477 118% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.60771543086 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 5.43587174349 129% => OK
Article: 1.0 2.52805611222 40% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.10420841683 48% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.76152304609 84% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 16.0721442886 106% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 20.2975951904 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 35.6750036069 49.4020404114 72% => OK
Chars per sentence: 110.058823529 106.682146367 103% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.4117647059 20.7667163134 108% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.88235294118 7.06120827912 69% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.67935871743 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 3.9879759519 251% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 3.4128256513 88% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.161146211303 0.244688304435 66% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0482287912725 0.084324248473 57% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0390284308233 0.0667982634062 58% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.103974046346 0.151304729494 69% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0149246547837 0.056905535591 26% => 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: 12.9 13.0946893788 99% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 50.2224549098 98% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 11.3001002004 105% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.49 12.4159519038 93% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.2 8.58950901804 107% => OK
difficult_words: 108.0 78.4519038076 138% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 9.78957915832 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.1190380762 107% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 10.7795591182 111% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 84.2696629213 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.5 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.