Nowadays, more and more people are choosing to socialize online rather than face to face. Is this a positive or negative development?
Social media has become an integral part of human life. It has not only influenced human behavior but also uplift the social life of an individual. This has happened due to technological advancements, as a number is social sites are available to contribute in our day to day life be it decision to buy something or chatting with friends. Personally, socializing online has added advantages and this is a constructive development. In this essay, information and evidence are provided to clarify my point of view.
Plenty of time has been saved via convenient internet access to social media. In the old days even before telephone is invented, it took at least days for people to send mails in exchange for information. Today, we are keeping in touch with our friends almost every seconds as long as we have internet access. The time wasted on waiting and arranging a meeting are obsolete and no longer needed. So, how we can refuse the obvious convenience social media offered?
Indirect communication are perfect for people who are introvert or have social anxiety. There are a substantial proportion of us are not the outgoing type of person, which means talking through social media can help some of them. Even for those who have absolutely no problem with socializing, occasions when face to face communicating is awkward still exist. And social media is the exact cue for this. Take for example online dating, which has been extremely popular ever since, helps people to meet people worldwide and makes it not so award compared to real life dating.
However, mingling online is very easy, but there are lots of threats too. People make fake profiles and do frauds. This is the reason, few philosophical people advocate online mingling as negative development.
To conclude, there is no reservation about the positive side of the development of online socializing, only need is to be vigilant as this vulnerable to frauds.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, however, if, second, so, still, at least, for example
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 13.1623246493 167% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 7.85571142285 38% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 10.4138276553 106% => OK
Relative clauses : 5.0 7.30460921844 68% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 19.0 24.0651302605 79% => OK
Preposition: 37.0 41.998997996 88% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 8.3376753507 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1616.0 1615.20841683 100% => OK
No of words: 322.0 315.596192385 102% => OK
Chars per words: 5.01863354037 5.12529762239 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.23607819155 4.20363070211 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.78955986254 2.80592935109 99% => OK
Unique words: 189.0 176.041082164 107% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.586956521739 0.561755894193 104% => OK
syllable_count: 530.1 506.74238477 105% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.60771543086 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 5.43587174349 92% => OK
Article: 1.0 2.52805611222 40% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.10420841683 48% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 0.809619238477 247% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 4.76152304609 63% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 16.0721442886 118% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 20.2975951904 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 40.9161699575 49.4020404114 83% => OK
Chars per sentence: 85.0526315789 106.682146367 80% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.9473684211 20.7667163134 82% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.36842105263 7.06120827912 48% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.38176352705 114% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.67935871743 81% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 3.9879759519 176% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 3.4128256513 147% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.216542594383 0.244688304435 88% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0640999704108 0.084324248473 76% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0469740030065 0.0667982634062 70% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.117358881743 0.151304729494 78% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0413772039712 0.056905535591 73% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.7 13.0946893788 82% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 55.24 50.2224549098 110% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 11.3001002004 84% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.54 12.4159519038 93% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.94 8.58950901804 104% => OK
difficult_words: 92.0 78.4519038076 117% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 9.78957915832 92% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 10.1190380762 83% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.7795591182 83% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 78.6516853933 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.0 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.