The leisure industry is growing rapidly. The active rate of modern technology in people’s leisure lives nowadays has made them less creative. Do you agree or disagree?
In the first half of the twenty-first century, contemporary means of technology such as the internet has brought about far-reaching impacts on individuals’ leisure lives. While some minority groups refute the favorable aspects, I subscribe to the optimistic perception.
To embark upon, technological advancements have introduced practical ways of communication platforms, internet in particular, in which everyone is capable of joining a myriad range of groups. Having subscribed to a group-based site, in this regard, one can relish playing strategic games, such as Clash of Clans as a salient illustration. In this occasion, not only do one thrive their creativity by accomplishing the game missions, but also they acquire aptitude of leadership, which is a positively helpful asset if it is utilized in their social conduct.
Another matter which is unmistakably ascribed to new means of technology is that they cater for know-how access without any dilemma. As creativity stems from knowledge, one can obtain unlimited information in a matter of seconds. In stark contrast, however, in past decades people had to spend a great deal of time and effort to get the required data, before they initiated an activity. Not surprisingly, then, the better a person take the advantage of the internet and other cutting-edge technological advancements, the more inventively they would perform their beloved leisure activity including gardening, cooking to name but a few.
The perspicacity of the aforementioned merits of incorporating new means of technology into entertaining activities has been frowned upon by some opponents, on the flip coin. Television in their opinion, as one prime exemplar, has been adversely influenced individuals’ spare time, in an assumption that it directs their brain in a passive mood. Had they not watched documentary programs such as The Planet Earth, as one obvious instance, however, they would not have gained valuable information that would culminate in more thoughtful demeanor towards wildlife, now.
To sum up, although the skepticism of beneficial consequences of new methods of technology in people’s daily lives, leisure time specifically, might still remain in some notions, creativity is of the mostly observed outcomes, when one relentlessly takes those enlightening advantages.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, second, so, still, then, while, in particular, such as, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 13.1623246493 61% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 7.85571142285 76% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 10.4138276553 38% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 7.0 7.30460921844 96% => OK
Pronoun: 20.0 24.0651302605 83% => OK
Preposition: 54.0 41.998997996 129% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 8.3376753507 84% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1994.0 1615.20841683 123% => OK
No of words: 353.0 315.596192385 112% => OK
Chars per words: 5.64872521246 5.12529762239 110% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.33454660006 4.20363070211 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.32228559204 2.80592935109 118% => OK
Unique words: 220.0 176.041082164 125% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.623229461756 0.561755894193 111% => OK
syllable_count: 632.7 506.74238477 125% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.60771543086 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 5.43587174349 37% => OK
Article: 3.0 2.52805611222 119% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 2.10420841683 333% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 0.809619238477 124% => OK
Preposition: 11.0 4.76152304609 231% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
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: 27.0 20.2975951904 133% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 53.7938207225 49.4020404114 109% => OK
Chars per sentence: 153.384615385 106.682146367 144% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.1538461538 20.7667163134 131% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.38461538462 7.06120827912 105% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.38176352705 114% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.67935871743 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 3.9879759519 25% => 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: 0.111308896975 0.244688304435 45% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0362727883778 0.084324248473 43% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0376405005937 0.0667982634062 56% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0657635479852 0.151304729494 43% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0291622378963 0.056905535591 51% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 18.8 13.0946893788 144% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 27.15 50.2224549098 54% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 13.0 7.44779559118 175% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 16.2 11.3001002004 143% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.79 12.4159519038 127% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.48 8.58950901804 122% => OK
difficult_words: 123.0 78.4519038076 157% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 9.78957915832 133% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.8 10.1190380762 126% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 10.7795591182 121% => 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.