When a country develops its technology, the traditional skills and ways of life die out. It is pointless to try and keep them alive. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion.
Developing technology is an undeniable fact that happen everyday whole around the word. It is a beliefe that when the new technologies developed in a country, the traditional methods and previous solutions must be omited and try to do in old skills is wasting energies, time, and resources. I am totally agree to this opinion, and in the following paragraphs, I write down some reasons and give my relevant examples.
At the first, traditional methods do not match with modern technologies. By and large, In recent decades, various kinds of machines are invented to agricultural industry. For example, moving water from water suply to farm is totally changes recently. Before, wasting clean water was the most famous issue that food producers were faced with. There was no other way except using modern technologies to transfering water without lost. On the other hand, present equipments are so fast, so people in developed country have to using updated methods and kill out previous skills to save their time and increasing their products rate.
Secondly, by improving the technology in the industries, a lot of hand-made staffs, be produced by machines and robots with more quality and quantity in less raw materials. In this situation, traditional solutions are so useless and uneffitient. People must change their mind and learn new skills to be alive and earn money. In developed countries knowledge upgrades in every moments. It is good evidance that local bessinesses are influenced by global businesses. For instance, Uber and Amazon.com by using new methods and skills can create a universal market for theirselves.
To put in a nutshell, I pen down saying that, people have not any other option accept killing traditional skill and method and using developed alternatives.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 305, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'agreed'.
Suggestion: agreed
...gies, time, and resources. I am totally agree to this opinion, and in the following p...
^^^^^
Line 2, column 251, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “Before” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...ly to farm is totally changes recently. Before, wasting clean water was the most famou...
^^^^^^
Line 2, column 515, Rule ID: NEED_TO_VBG[1]
Message: Did you mean 'have to use'?
Suggestion: have to use
...so fast, so people in developed country have to using updated methods and kill out previous s...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, second, secondly, so, for example, for instance, by and large, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 13.1623246493 114% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 7.85571142285 38% => OK
Conjunction : 17.0 10.4138276553 163% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 7.30460921844 82% => OK
Pronoun: 16.0 24.0651302605 66% => OK
Preposition: 39.0 41.998997996 93% => 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: 1499.0 1615.20841683 93% => OK
No of words: 288.0 315.596192385 91% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.20486111111 5.12529762239 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.11953428781 4.20363070211 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.84997960993 2.80592935109 102% => OK
Unique words: 176.0 176.041082164 100% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.611111111111 0.561755894193 109% => OK
syllable_count: 471.6 506.74238477 93% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.60771543086 100% => 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: 2.0 0.809619238477 247% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 8.0 4.76152304609 168% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 16.0721442886 100% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 20.2975951904 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 44.5880011186 49.4020404114 90% => OK
Chars per sentence: 93.6875 106.682146367 88% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.0 20.7667163134 87% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.4375 7.06120827912 77% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.01903807615 60% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.67935871743 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 3.9879759519 100% => 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: 0.180487489064 0.244688304435 74% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0534754717466 0.084324248473 63% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0436700662735 0.0667982634062 65% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.108014266364 0.151304729494 71% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0357725700104 0.056905535591 63% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.1 13.0946893788 92% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 50.2224549098 106% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 11.3001002004 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.58 12.4159519038 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.81 8.58950901804 103% => OK
difficult_words: 78.0 78.4519038076 99% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 9.78957915832 92% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.1190380762 91% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.7795591182 83% => 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.