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?
Libraries are considered as the knowledge hub since ancient time. While, the conventional mindsets argued that hi-tech libraries distract readers and cost more money, others supported implementing of technology as it redefined the concept of libraries and influenced the way we learn new things and share information. Thus, I disagree with the notion that these amenities are a waste of resources and space because nowadays digital contents and advanced setups are widely used in public libraries globally.
Adopting the digital content not only provides better reading experience but also creates an interest in reading. Such technological advancements led to creation of online resources in form of web portals like Wikipedia and interactive content like Britannica encyclopaedia. As a result, the readers had the convenience of taking virtual tour of a historical place, at any time convenient, rather than reading it from the book during reading hours. Moreover, these digital resources consume very little space and use fewer staff person, a single CD can contain more than hundreds of books, which otherwise in form of hard-books would occupy more shelves and require human resources for management.
Interestingly, the earlier libraries carried out restoration of books, in a separate preservation room, that were damaged by moisture, natural wear and tear, whereas the modern setups do not require such facilities. For instance, Nalanda library in Bihar, the biggest place containing huge collection of ancient historical books and evidences, could not be saved from fire in the war with Mughal emperor and it resulted in loss of national treasure. Moreover, the modern libraries have become smarter and safer than before, by converting the printed content to digital form, which is beneficial in long term.
To conclude, the transformation of public libraries has proven beneficial and convenient for readers and researchers, they are better in terms of interactive learning and richer experience. It is expected that traditional libraries should include advanced methods to enhance human knowledge.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, moreover, so, thus, whereas, while, for instance, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 13.1623246493 61% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 7.85571142285 51% => OK
Conjunction : 16.0 10.4138276553 154% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 7.30460921844 82% => OK
Pronoun: 13.0 24.0651302605 54% => OK
Preposition: 41.0 41.998997996 98% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 8.3376753507 144% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1797.0 1615.20841683 111% => OK
No of words: 321.0 315.596192385 102% => OK
Chars per words: 5.59813084112 5.12529762239 109% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.23278547379 4.20363070211 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.92324736243 2.80592935109 104% => OK
Unique words: 202.0 176.041082164 115% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.629283489097 0.561755894193 112% => OK
syllable_count: 564.3 506.74238477 111% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.60771543086 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 5.43587174349 92% => OK
Article: 7.0 2.52805611222 277% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 1.0 2.10420841683 48% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.76152304609 84% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 16.0721442886 75% => 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: 26.0 20.2975951904 128% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 56.5457042282 49.4020404114 114% => OK
Chars per sentence: 149.75 106.682146367 140% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.75 20.7667163134 129% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.0 7.06120827912 85% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.67935871743 81% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 3.9879759519 50% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.168485796692 0.244688304435 69% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0564874357545 0.084324248473 67% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.030218942895 0.0667982634062 45% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0978579796112 0.151304729494 65% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.028707384172 0.056905535591 50% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 18.3 13.0946893788 140% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 28.17 50.2224549098 56% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 11.2 7.44779559118 150% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.8 11.3001002004 140% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.5 12.4159519038 125% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.29 8.58950901804 120% => OK
difficult_words: 109.0 78.4519038076 139% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 9.78957915832 123% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 10.1190380762 123% => OK
text_standard: 16.0 10.7795591182 148% => 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.