Surveillance technology has been widely used increasingly around the world. For example, public surveillance by government has drastically increased since 9/11 incident. China government also uses a huge CCTV network for social credit system. The use of this technology has become a discussion topic for many years. Some people believe that it violates people’s privacy, on the other hand, it provides public safety.
Monitoring technology provides benefits for various local and global use cases. The simplest use is to install security cameras in a store that contains high-monetary value product or contains a lot of cash such as a gold shop, a gun shop, or a bank. Furthermore, people has recently begun to install a security camera in their cars so that they have a strong evidence to protect themselves in case that an accident happen. Local governments can also install security cameras in secluded areas to monitor and protect their people. Finally, governments can also multiple kinds of surveillance technology together such as wire tapping to monitor suspects for terrorism protection.
However, excessive monitoring does not push the safety level to the best. In contrast, it brings the uncomfortable feeling to people because their privacy is being violated. Sacrificing privacy of million people in order to watch a handful of criminals or terrorists does not make people happy. If the government already knows who are suspects, they should have a better way to keep track of those suspects instead of violating everyone’s right. More than that, some governments use surveillance technology to provide a scoring system that penalty people when unpleasant action is taken.
In summary, technology always brings both good and bad use cases. Using it in a good way provides safety to people; contrastingly, excessive surveillance violate people’s rights. It is up to each government to decide how much trade-off it want to pay for.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 328, Rule ID: WHO_NOUN[1]
Message: A noun should not follow "who". Try changing to a verb or maybe to 'who is a are'.
Suggestion: who is a are
... happy. If the government already knows who are suspects, they should have a better way...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 245, Rule ID: IT_VBZ[1]
Message: Did you mean 'wants'?
Suggestion: wants
...ernment to decide how much trade-off it want to pay for.
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, furthermore, however, if, so, as to, for example, in contrast, in summary, such as, on the other hand
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: 3.0 7.85571142285 38% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 10.4138276553 58% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 8.0 7.30460921844 110% => OK
Pronoun: 20.0 24.0651302605 83% => OK
Preposition: 36.0 41.998997996 86% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 8.3376753507 132% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1659.0 1615.20841683 103% => OK
No of words: 308.0 315.596192385 98% => OK
Chars per words: 5.38636363636 5.12529762239 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.18926351222 4.20363070211 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.9966582698 2.80592935109 107% => OK
Unique words: 182.0 176.041082164 103% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.590909090909 0.561755894193 105% => OK
syllable_count: 521.1 506.74238477 103% => 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: 3.0 2.52805611222 119% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.10420841683 48% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 0.809619238477 124% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.76152304609 63% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 16.0721442886 112% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 20.2975951904 84% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 34.8968939861 49.4020404114 71% => OK
Chars per sentence: 92.1666666667 106.682146367 86% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.1111111111 20.7667163134 82% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.44444444444 7.06120827912 91% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.01903807615 40% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.67935871743 104% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 3.9879759519 176% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 3.4128256513 59% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.313740177833 0.244688304435 128% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.096154931666 0.084324248473 114% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0447564232075 0.0667982634062 67% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.179474452718 0.151304729494 119% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0394818708106 0.056905535591 69% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.5 13.0946893788 95% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 45.76 50.2224549098 91% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 11.3001002004 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.69 12.4159519038 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.58 8.58950901804 100% => OK
difficult_words: 80.0 78.4519038076 102% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.0 9.78957915832 72% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.1190380762 87% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.7795591182 83% => 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.