Some people believe that modern technology is increasing the gap between rich and poor, while others disagree.
Discuss both views and give your own opinion.
Even though contemporary technological innovations are bringing unprecedented convenience, only a few resourceful people can access it. Individuals have indifferent views regarding whether it increases the dichotomy between the affluent and the impoverished or the opposite is happening. This essay will gingerly converse about both the views and will argue why technology is augmenting the economical gap between people.
People who think assert that technology is diminishing the gap between the opulent and the poverty-stricken might argue that a person can transform their life from rags to riches via modern innovations. Today, anyone who owns an internet-enabled device can either make blogs or videos which would transform them into overnight sensations. Justin Bieber, for example, used to upload videos of his singing and songwriting skills and is today is a celebrity. As most of the people nowadays have access to smartphones, tablets or laptops the probability to make a lavish amount of money is on the higher side. Hence, technical advancements have the potential to change someone’s financial predicaments.
On the other hand, others and I think that technology is fueling the division between the rich and the poor might argue that modern inventions have made it almost impossible to attain job security. As artificial intelligent robots are incessantly replacing humans at workplaces, these workers who are already trying to make ends meet are losing their much-needed jobs; eventually pushing them below the poverty line. General Motors, Nissan, Hyundai, for instance, have already employed robots in place of humans to increase their daily production that resulted in job loss for thousands of people. Therefore, if the technology is driving business owners to lay-off their employees, indeed, technological innovations can be held accountable for the increasing gap between the fortunate and the not so fortunate people.
To conclude, even though technological breakthroughs might help only a few to become millionaires, if thousands of people are being laid-off because of this, it is solely promoting the gap between economical classes in the society.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
hence, if, regarding, so, therefore, for example, for instance, i think, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 13.1623246493 122% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 7.85571142285 127% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 10.4138276553 106% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 7.30460921844 123% => OK
Pronoun: 20.0 24.0651302605 83% => OK
Preposition: 37.0 41.998997996 88% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 8.3376753507 36% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1856.0 1615.20841683 115% => OK
No of words: 331.0 315.596192385 105% => OK
Chars per words: 5.60725075529 5.12529762239 109% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.26537283232 4.20363070211 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.11576901242 2.80592935109 111% => OK
Unique words: 197.0 176.041082164 112% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.595166163142 0.561755894193 106% => OK
syllable_count: 575.1 506.74238477 113% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 5.43587174349 55% => OK
Article: 0.0 2.52805611222 0% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.10420841683 285% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.76152304609 42% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 16.0721442886 81% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 25.0 20.2975951904 123% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 42.4261279327 49.4020404114 86% => OK
Chars per sentence: 142.769230769 106.682146367 134% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.4615384615 20.7667163134 123% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.92307692308 7.06120827912 98% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.67935871743 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 3.9879759519 75% => 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: 0.231722799188 0.244688304435 95% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0749136547817 0.084324248473 89% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0655009522623 0.0667982634062 98% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.13467093654 0.151304729494 89% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0353759130697 0.056905535591 62% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.7 13.0946893788 135% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 37.64 50.2224549098 75% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.44779559118 150% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 11.3001002004 126% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.55 12.4159519038 125% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.89 8.58950901804 115% => OK
difficult_words: 105.0 78.4519038076 134% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 9.78957915832 133% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 10.1190380762 119% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 10.7795591182 111% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 89.8876404494 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 8.0 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.