Some believe that modern technology is increasing the gap between rich and poor people, while others disagree. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.
There is no doubt that modern technology is reshaping our planet and affecting every aspect of human lives. From a social perspective, many people argue that the gap between the upper class and lower classes is widening as a result of technological advancements. Others, however, believe the opposite.
There are several reasons why one could think that the wealth inequality is, indeed, increasing. The most common reason is the automation. Driven by technology, automation reduces the need for manual labour. As a result, less work opportunities are available for unskilled people. With each iteration of the cycle the competition increases and wages decrease. Secondly, technology has increased the minimum level of needs that should be satisfied. Nowadays, everybody should have a mobile phone and an internet connection, including the poor. This increases the monetary burden on them as they must borrow to cover these new needs.
However, I firmly believe that the aforementioned opinion is ludicrous. The most obvious reason is that modern technology has facilitated the road to riches in an unprecedented manner. For instance, many of the internet billionaires are from lower and middle classes. Moreover, the major leaps in agricultural technologies has magnified food production. As a result, food has become more affordable and available. Finally, leveraging technology has dramatically increased workers’ productivity. Consequently, compensations and salaries have increased.
In conclusion, I strongly believe that technology could possibly narrow the difference between social classes. Increased food production, opportunities and productivity are just few examples of technology’s contribution to bridging the wealth gap.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 157, Rule ID: IN_A_X_MANNER[1]
Message: Consider replacing "in an unprecedented manner" with adverb for "unprecedented"; eg, "in a hasty manner" with "hastily".
...logy has facilitated the road to riches in an unprecedented manner. For instance, many of the internet bil...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 51, Rule ID: MAY_COULD_POSSIBLY[1]
Message: Use simply 'could'.
Suggestion: could
...ion, I strongly believe that technology could possibly narrow the difference between social cl...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, consequently, finally, however, if, moreover, second, secondly, so, for instance, in conclusion, no doubt, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 13.1623246493 91% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 7.85571142285 76% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 10.4138276553 77% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 7.30460921844 96% => OK
Pronoun: 14.0 24.0651302605 58% => OK
Preposition: 20.0 41.998997996 48% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 10.0 8.3376753507 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1497.0 1615.20841683 93% => OK
No of words: 255.0 315.596192385 81% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.87058823529 5.12529762239 115% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.99608801488 4.20363070211 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.28419139368 2.80592935109 117% => OK
Unique words: 163.0 176.041082164 93% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.639215686275 0.561755894193 114% => OK
syllable_count: 474.3 506.74238477 94% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.9 1.60771543086 118% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 5.43587174349 55% => OK
Article: 3.0 2.52805611222 119% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.10420841683 95% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.76152304609 63% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 16.0721442886 124% => OK
Sentence length: 12.0 20.2975951904 59% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 28.5440011211 49.4020404114 58% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 74.85 106.682146367 70% => OK
Words per sentence: 12.75 20.7667163134 61% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.15 7.06120827912 87% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.01903807615 40% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.67935871743 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 3.9879759519 150% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 3.4128256513 176% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.205368379232 0.244688304435 84% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0507322880201 0.084324248473 60% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0410157908015 0.0667982634062 61% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.123278120887 0.151304729494 81% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0261454730889 0.056905535591 46% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.6 13.0946893788 96% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 33.92 50.2224549098 68% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 11.3001002004 102% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.88 12.4159519038 128% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.93 8.58950901804 116% => OK
difficult_words: 92.0 78.4519038076 117% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.5 9.78957915832 66% => OK
gunning_fog: 6.8 10.1190380762 67% => OK
text_standard: 7.0 10.7795591182 65% => The average readability is low. Need to imporve the language.
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 67.4157303371 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 6.0 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.