Some people argue that technological inventions, such as mobile phones, are making people socially less interactive.
Do you agree or disagree?
21st century, the new era of technology and rat race for technological inventions has made world within reach to everyone. Having some concerns raised by the few people arguing against technological inventions spoiling social interaction in the society represents one side view of the story. My opinion does not completely follow these people. In fact, I would consider my opinion contrary to this side of story.
Firstly, let us visualize marvelous contribution of technology in putting together people through our so-called magnificent social apps such as Facebook, twitter, Skype, WhatsApp and ending up with countless platforms. Couples settled in different countries open up their charm of this beautiful morning with heart touching and personalized smile of their partner with this magic of Skype. You may meet with your close relative settled in other corner of world in few hours, thanks to <span style="font-size: 19.36px;">Airplanes </span>invention. Many more example of such inventions can be listed down along with list of their contributions towards making people more aware and accessible for social interaction.
On the contrary, although some people argues against the negative effects of technologies, which has, eaten up more of time which was alternatively available for social interaction. We need to urgent that such time utilization should not be considered as eaten up by theses gadgets. Alternatively, it is shift of time from physical presence to the society towards virtual presence. It is up to the people and on their way to utilize technology. It can be better understood in lights of memory from childhood where we used to gather other friends by calling their names standing in their streets and with their doorbells. With these technologies, trends has shifted towards common WhatsApp ground to plan the gathering, which is much more reliable and easy way than ever before.
To conclude, it is baseless to curse the technologies to eat up time available for our social interaction rather than changing their attitude and reaping the benefits of these technologies to increase our connectivity.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, firstly, if, may, so, in fact, such as, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 13.1623246493 61% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 7.85571142285 76% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 10.4138276553 77% => OK
Relative clauses : 5.0 7.30460921844 68% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 30.0 24.0651302605 125% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 63.0 41.998997996 150% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 8.3376753507 108% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1815.0 1615.20841683 112% => OK
No of words: 333.0 315.596192385 106% => OK
Chars per words: 5.45045045045 5.12529762239 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.27180144563 4.20363070211 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.24220314765 2.80592935109 116% => OK
Unique words: 195.0 176.041082164 111% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.585585585586 0.561755894193 104% => OK
syllable_count: 549.9 506.74238477 109% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 5.43587174349 147% => OK
Article: 1.0 2.52805611222 40% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.10420841683 48% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.76152304609 84% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 16.0721442886 93% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 20.2975951904 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 52.4206914194 49.4020404114 106% => OK
Chars per sentence: 121.0 106.682146367 113% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.2 20.7667163134 107% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.46666666667 7.06120827912 63% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.67935871743 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 3.9879759519 50% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.173431601721 0.244688304435 71% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.058499041086 0.084324248473 69% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0625248460801 0.0667982634062 94% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.103996937504 0.151304729494 69% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0263119642284 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: 15.3 13.0946893788 117% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 40.69 50.2224549098 81% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.1 11.3001002004 116% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.33 12.4159519038 115% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.9 8.58950901804 104% => OK
difficult_words: 88.0 78.4519038076 112% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 9.78957915832 87% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.1190380762 107% => 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.