Some believe that advances in technology are increasing the gap between rich and poor while others think the opposite is happening.
Discuss both sides and give your own opinion
In just the last two decades we have seen exponential growth in the new technology. With this advancement in technologies, the debate about if the gap between the wealthy and the poor has narrowed or not has become more contentious. This essay will argue both sides of the argument and conclude with why I feel that the wealth gap has decreased between rich and poor with this advancement.
To begin with, many people believe that technological advancements have made things easily accessible and cheaper to all people. The same resources where one had to pay a premium price for is now widely available with more affordable options. For example, the same International call which earlier could have been possible only through an ISD location is now available to everyone at the same price in their phone itself. This was possible through many progressive innovations on the Internet and mobile phones. Another example is that in the old days when TV programs for only available by paying the subscription fees are now easily available on mobile phones through YouTube and other similar applications. For all these reasons, it is safe to say that technological advancements are nothing but one step forward in closing the gap between affluent and poor.
On the other side, some people believe that these innovations have widened the gap between the two classes of people. Many of the innovations have created services and products that are too ambitious to be bought by the poor. For instance, Apple products are so costly that many Memes went viral in India that made a joke of poor people and what they may have to sacrifice to get these products. This creates inferiority among the poor and A sense of pride among the rich at the same time. Therefore, it is reasonable to believe that such advancements can create a wall between rich and poor.
In conclusion, it is a unanimous view that technological advancements have benefited everyone. While there are some products or services that have clearly separate the two types of people sitting on either end of a wealth spectrum, there are many innovations that have enabled the less privileged To be benefited From the same basic needs that were at ones were only available to the rich.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, if, may, so, therefore, while, for example, for instance, i feel, in conclusion, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 13.1623246493 137% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 7.85571142285 51% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 10.4138276553 134% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 7.30460921844 219% => Less relative clauses wanted (maybe 'which' is over used).
Pronoun: 29.0 24.0651302605 121% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 52.0 41.998997996 124% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 8.3376753507 72% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1864.0 1615.20841683 115% => OK
No of words: 379.0 315.596192385 120% => OK
Chars per words: 4.91820580475 5.12529762239 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.41224685777 4.20363070211 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.71173877729 2.80592935109 97% => OK
Unique words: 194.0 176.041082164 110% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.511873350923 0.561755894193 91% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 603.0 506.74238477 119% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.60771543086 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 5.43587174349 110% => OK
Article: 3.0 2.52805611222 119% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.10420841683 48% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.76152304609 105% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 16.0721442886 100% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 20.2975951904 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 52.3052563683 49.4020404114 106% => OK
Chars per sentence: 116.5 106.682146367 109% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.6875 20.7667163134 114% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.1875 7.06120827912 88% => 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 : 5.0 3.9879759519 125% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 3.4128256513 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.205969856985 0.244688304435 84% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0774920510779 0.084324248473 92% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0717170221739 0.0667982634062 107% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.12992090791 0.151304729494 86% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0473493842764 0.056905535591 83% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.6 13.0946893788 104% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.13 50.2224549098 96% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 11.3001002004 109% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.55 12.4159519038 93% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.07 8.58950901804 94% => OK
difficult_words: 79.0 78.4519038076 101% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 9.78957915832 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.1190380762 111% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 10.7795591182 111% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 73.0337078652 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 6.5 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.