Modern technology has increased material wealth, but not our happiness. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Modern technology has made tremendous improvements in the living conditions of people the world over. More food, better medical facilities, improved transportation and extended educational opportunities have definitely helped to reduce the misery of vast sections of people, who had hitherto been condemned to poverty and deprivation. Hence, it is my view that modern technology has, through increasing material wealth, contributed to making our lives less miserable.
Most importantly, modern technology has helped to improve food production. Hunger and poverty were quite widespread, even in the most prosperous countries, in the not too distant past. However, with the introduction of modern agricultural implements, advanced irrigation and pest control, food production increased by leaps and bounds, which made it more available to vast sections of people, who had hitherto been largely denied the primary requirement of all living beings, food.
Moreover, the positive influence of technology is discernible in all walks of life. Thus, epidemics have more or less been obliterated as a result of improvements in medical technology. Furthermore, improved transportation and communication facilities have made educational opportunities available to the vast majority of people. And the enlightenment, facilitated through education, has contributed to laying the foundation of a happy life.
To conclude, advancement in technology has removed many of the impediments to a happy life for the majority of people far and wide. It is a fact that there are still people, who continue to suffer the deprivations of life, which make their existence miserable. Modern technology can be effectively used to improve their living conditions, which is the sine qua non of happiness
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 416, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...to laying the foundation of a happy life To conclude advancement in technology ha...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, furthermore, hence, however, if, moreover, so, for instance
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 7.0 13.1623246493 53% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 1.0 7.85571142285 13% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 10.4138276553 86% => OK
Relative clauses : 4.0 7.30460921844 55% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 7.0 24.0651302605 29% => OK
Preposition: 33.0 41.998997996 79% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 8.3376753507 192% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1418.0 1615.20841683 88% => OK
No of words: 258.0 315.596192385 82% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.49612403101 5.12529762239 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.00778971557 4.20363070211 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.04118120572 2.80592935109 108% => OK
Unique words: 153.0 176.041082164 87% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.593023255814 0.561755894193 106% => OK
syllable_count: 460.8 506.74238477 91% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.60771543086 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 0.0 5.43587174349 0% => OK
Article: 0.0 2.52805611222 0% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.10420841683 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.76152304609 21% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 1.0 16.0721442886 6% => 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: 258.0 20.2975951904 1271% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 0.0 49.4020404114 0% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 1418.0 106.682146367 1329% => Less chars_per_sentence wanted.
Words per sentence: 258.0 20.7667163134 1242% => Less words per sentence wanted.
Discourse Markers: 64.0 7.06120827912 906% => Less transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 1.0 8.67935871743 12% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 0.0 3.9879759519 0% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 3.4128256513 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.154095033911 0.244688304435 63% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.154095033911 0.084324248473 183% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0667982634062 0% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0924820923914 0.151304729494 61% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0523468285343 0.056905535591 92% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 133.5 13.0946893788 1019% => Automated_readability_index is high.
flesch_reading_ease: -207.31 50.2224549098 -413% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 0.0 7.44779559118 0% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 106.3 11.3001002004 941% => Flesch kincaid grade is high.
coleman_liau_index: 16.1 12.4159519038 130% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 21.02 8.58950901804 245% => Dale chall readability score is high.
difficult_words: 75.0 78.4519038076 96% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 68.0 9.78957915832 695% => Linsear_write_formula is high.
gunning_fog: 105.2 10.1190380762 1040% => Gunning_fog is high.
text_standard: 106.0 10.7795591182 983% => The average readability is very high. Good job!
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.