Some people think that modern technology is making people more sociable, while others think it is making them less sociable. Discuss both views and give your opinion
Technological advancements have changed the lives of mankind in many ways. Though there is one school of thought which believes that technology is bringing people closer, yet there is another one which does not prefer the modern way of interactions. We will discuss both the point of views and demonstrate how technology is actually making people less sociable.
There are two primary arguments in favor of modern technology helping people become more sociable. Foremost is the ability to find long lost friends of childhood, school and college period through social media with whom one can converse even though staying at a distance. For instance, I was able to find my close friends and relatives on facebook within six months of joining it. Moreover, it is providing them a platform to come out of the closet and share their thoughts with others. Thereby, making them more confident while expressing their views. This is done through websites like twitter, where many political, sports and other areas of personal interest are tweeted by users.
On the other hand, it has many ill-effects as well while making people less sociable in the physical world. Firstly, it is very easy for users to express fake emotions online and deceive the other person. But when the meeting is done face to face, the reality is much different and it leads to disappointment. Secondly, as children are involved more in their smartphones than focusing on their parents or siblings, their social skills of observations and to respond accordingly are getting reduced drastically. As per a study by Harvard institute, with increase in smartphone penetration, the ability of students to respond favorably to different type of stimuli has reduced and the negative emotions have increased
To summarize the above views, the drawbacks of deception in virtual world against reality and reduction in observation and responding skills outweigh the benefits of finding old friends and ability to share personal views without any inhibition, and therefore more traditional ways of interaction should be adopted to become more sociable.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
accordingly, actually, but, first, firstly, if, moreover, second, secondly, so, therefore, well, while, for instance, 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: 3.0 7.85571142285 38% => OK
Conjunction : 16.0 10.4138276553 154% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 7.30460921844 82% => OK
Pronoun: 17.0 24.0651302605 71% => OK
Preposition: 50.0 41.998997996 119% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 8.3376753507 108% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1777.0 1615.20841683 110% => OK
No of words: 338.0 315.596192385 107% => OK
Chars per words: 5.2573964497 5.12529762239 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.28774723029 4.20363070211 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.75120091485 2.80592935109 98% => OK
Unique words: 204.0 176.041082164 116% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.603550295858 0.561755894193 107% => OK
syllable_count: 553.5 506.74238477 109% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.60771543086 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 5.43587174349 129% => OK
Article: 3.0 2.52805611222 119% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.10420841683 143% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 0.809619238477 371% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 4.76152304609 63% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 16.0721442886 87% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 20.2975951904 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 116.318966815 49.4020404114 235% => The lengths of sentences changed so frequently.
Chars per sentence: 126.928571429 106.682146367 119% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.1428571429 20.7667163134 116% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.64285714286 7.06120827912 137% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.67935871743 104% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 3.9879759519 50% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 3.4128256513 88% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.262707753395 0.244688304435 107% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.093263921283 0.084324248473 111% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.112866395001 0.0667982634062 169% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.151874404479 0.151304729494 100% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0734364064167 0.056905535591 129% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.4 13.0946893788 118% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 47.12 50.2224549098 94% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 11.3001002004 112% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.52 12.4159519038 109% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.17 8.58950901804 107% => OK
difficult_words: 93.0 78.4519038076 119% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 9.78957915832 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 10.1190380762 115% => 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.