The main purpose of public libraries is to provide books, and they should not waste their limited resources and space on providing expensive hi-tech media such as computer software, videos and DVDs. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
The libraries, which have been known as citadel of learning, are now equipped with various advanced technological methods to assist learners with their education. While the world has probed further with equipping technology in the libraries, the author favours the conservation of financial resources by encouraging the conventional form of reading. Personally, I disagree with the author and the contributing factors behind this disagreement will be discussed in the forth-coming paragraphs.
Conventionally, most of the community libraries were providing facilities for a very small number of readers. The funds to procure reading material were raised with the grants received from public bodies and donations from various private organisations. Moreover, the expenditure was limited for addition of new books and up-keep of the existing ones. With time, the number of readers increased, but the funding however, remained stagnant. Consequently, the high demand and less availability of content led to overuse and physical deterioration of the books.
As the scenario progressed further to the era of internet and technology, the resources for reading started being made available on internet. While the internet was being widely used for research and communication, it also brought a revolution in the world of readers by allowing the spread of E-books and reading materials without the need of costly printed content. Moreover, some internationally widespread resources portals like Wikipedia and Britannica encyclopaedia made it very economical for students to enhance their pool of knowledge without spending much on hard-books.
Summing up, I believe that the increasing number of readers can easily be catered by investing in hi-tech gadgets, CDs and online resources as it is much more economical than the maintenance and restoration of authentic material. Thus, the investment in technology is not a waste of money; it is rather advantageous in the long term.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, consequently, however, moreover, so, then, thus, while
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 13.1623246493 99% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 7.85571142285 38% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 10.4138276553 115% => OK
Relative clauses : 2.0 7.30460921844 27% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 10.0 24.0651302605 42% => OK
Preposition: 48.0 41.998997996 114% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 8.3376753507 132% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1683.0 1615.20841683 104% => OK
No of words: 298.0 315.596192385 94% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.64765100671 5.12529762239 110% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.15483772266 4.20363070211 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.17048038289 2.80592935109 113% => OK
Unique words: 183.0 176.041082164 104% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.614093959732 0.561755894193 109% => OK
syllable_count: 519.3 506.74238477 102% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 5.43587174349 74% => OK
Article: 8.0 2.52805611222 316% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 3.0 2.10420841683 143% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 0.809619238477 124% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.76152304609 21% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
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: 22.0 20.2975951904 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 47.259324868 49.4020404114 96% => OK
Chars per sentence: 129.461538462 106.682146367 121% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.9230769231 20.7667163134 110% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.0 7.06120827912 71% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.67935871743 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 3.9879759519 100% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 3.4128256513 29% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0942432536271 0.244688304435 39% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0307167903663 0.084324248473 36% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0229079817872 0.0667982634062 34% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0522264917282 0.151304729494 35% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0151305314014 0.056905535591 27% => 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: 16.6 13.0946893788 127% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 40.69 50.2224549098 81% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.44779559118 150% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.1 11.3001002004 116% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.79 12.4159519038 127% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.45 8.58950901804 122% => OK
difficult_words: 108.0 78.4519038076 138% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.5 9.78957915832 128% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.1190380762 107% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 10.7795591182 102% => 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.