Video records are a better way to learn about the way other people in the world live rather than written documents. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Video records are a better way to learn about the way other people in the world live rather than written documents. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
It is believed by many people that videos are a better instrument to explore life of citizens around the world than books and other literature. I mostly agree to the point of view as using videos could be more digestable and convenient for the ordinary than travel documents, even though it may be costly.
The first reason why I advocate to the utilization of visual materials is that it can be understandable for the majority of users. It could be difficult to articulate colorful outfits or majestic natural landscapes of a particular region for audience through reading. Given the proliferation of technologies including cameras and social platform, observing traditional clothes and natural wonder would be easy for everyone.
Additionally, videos offter greater convenience compared to reading materials. With internet connection and smart devices, users can find out about the way of life of others globally any where and any time they long for. Tourism literature, on the other hand, would be heavy and troublesome to carry around and read, especially when people are on duty or taking long trips.
Addmittedly, creation of videos to illuminate about humans would be expensive. Visual records of remote places could examplify the phenomena, which demand a plethora of expenditure from mobility to manpower. However, users these days tend to pay for the allocations of those videos as long as they are quality content. This can be executed through donations and financial benefits from social platforms.
In summary, I somewhat concur to the utilization of videos to teach people about the culture and daily lives of the local worldwide. By harnessing the technology, watchers can find it easy to comprehend, albeit it appears with exorbitant cost at first.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 183, Rule ID: ANY_WHERE[1]
Message: Did you mean 'anywhere'?
Suggestion: anywhere
...bout the way of life of others globally any where and any time they long for. Tourism lit...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 374, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...eople are on duty or taking long trips. Addmittedly, creation of videos to illum...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, however, if, may, so, in summary, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 13.1623246493 106% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 7.85571142285 140% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 10.4138276553 125% => OK
Relative clauses : 5.0 7.30460921844 68% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 17.0 24.0651302605 71% => OK
Preposition: 48.0 41.998997996 114% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 8.3376753507 96% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1618.0 1615.20841683 100% => OK
No of words: 312.0 315.596192385 99% => OK
Chars per words: 5.1858974359 5.12529762239 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.20279927342 4.20363070211 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.83477599888 2.80592935109 101% => OK
Unique words: 184.0 176.041082164 105% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.589743589744 0.561755894193 105% => OK
syllable_count: 520.2 506.74238477 103% => 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: 1.0 2.52805611222 40% => 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: 16.0 16.0721442886 100% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 20.2975951904 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 32.3976754567 49.4020404114 66% => OK
Chars per sentence: 101.125 106.682146367 95% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.5 20.7667163134 94% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.625 7.06120827912 51% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 6.0 4.38176352705 137% => Less paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 2.0 5.01903807615 40% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.67935871743 104% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 3.9879759519 100% => OK
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: 0.331168274692 0.244688304435 135% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.112662364651 0.084324248473 134% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.17821376626 0.0667982634062 267% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.225567912018 0.151304729494 149% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.313851039162 0.056905535591 552% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.8 13.0946893788 98% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 43.73 50.2224549098 87% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 11.3001002004 105% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.82 12.4159519038 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.59 8.58950901804 112% => OK
difficult_words: 99.0 78.4519038076 126% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 9.78957915832 112% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.1190380762 95% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 10.7795591182 121% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Maximum five paragraphs wanted.
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.