It is often argued that public libraries have a principal scope, namely to give books to those who have a need. I completely disagree with this opinion and I think that supply expensive electronic devices may be more effective.
First of all, I believe that providing expensive electronics reduce the time of searching and all of the information is in a better order. Even if someone has needed to search exact information, it is very simple with a computer to search it.
For example, when I was studying we had a lot of projects to do in a short time. It was very simple to go into a public library and to do a search on a computer. Like that we did our projects on time. That’s why it’s more important to offer more ways for the stage of searching.
Secondly, providing electronics would attract more reader with the use of technology.
In other words, there is a strong relation between technology and the people of the 21st century. Supplying electronic devices make the libraries more attractive,
thus the number of readers is increasing and also the finances.
For instance, in my city when I was little there was a simple library with only books, but unfortunately there were many readers there. 10 years later when I visited the library again, I was surprised because there were more children there. I think that was because of computers that were brought there.
Thus, advantages of electronics that keep people more inspired. To conclude, I strongly believe that public libraries who provide not only books, but also electronic devices is more beneficial that public libraries that supply only books, because make time of searching more short and also attract more readers.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 95, Rule ID: ALL_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'all the'.
Suggestion: all the
...ronics reduce the time of searching and all of the information is in a better order. Even ...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 11, column 1, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: thus,
... make the libraries more attractive, thus the number of readers is increasing and...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, if, may, second, secondly, so, thus, for example, for instance, i think, first of all, in other words
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 13.1623246493 122% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 7.85571142285 38% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 10.4138276553 77% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 7.30460921844 219% => Less relative clauses wanted (maybe 'which' is over used).
Pronoun: 31.0 24.0651302605 129% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 33.0 41.998997996 79% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 8.3376753507 48% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1422.0 1615.20841683 88% => OK
No of words: 289.0 315.596192385 92% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.92041522491 5.12529762239 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.12310562562 4.20363070211 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.67242745685 2.80592935109 95% => OK
Unique words: 145.0 176.041082164 82% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.501730103806 0.561755894193 89% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 455.4 506.74238477 90% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.60771543086 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 5.43587174349 166% => OK
Article: 0.0 2.52805611222 0% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.10420841683 143% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 0.809619238477 247% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 4.76152304609 84% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 16.0721442886 100% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 20.2975951904 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 45.6588915218 49.4020404114 92% => OK
Chars per sentence: 88.875 106.682146367 83% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.0625 20.7667163134 87% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.4375 7.06120827912 105% => OK
Paragraphs: 8.0 4.38176352705 183% => Less paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 2.0 5.01903807615 40% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.67935871743 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 3.9879759519 50% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 3.4128256513 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.128411566186 0.244688304435 52% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0443846137419 0.084324248473 53% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.035394563318 0.0667982634062 53% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0608831445464 0.151304729494 40% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0372349060404 0.056905535591 65% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.8 13.0946893788 82% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 50.2224549098 106% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.44779559118 42% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 11.3001002004 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.96 12.4159519038 88% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.37 8.58950901804 86% => OK
difficult_words: 52.0 78.4519038076 66% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 9.78957915832 112% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.1190380762 91% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 10.7795591182 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Maximum five paragraphs wanted.
Rates: 61.797752809 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.5 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.