In recent years, technology development has changed our everyday life in many ways. Some people advocate that it widen the gap between the rich and the poverty. Meanwhile, some people suggest that it narrows the difference between them. In my opinion, the growth of technology has accounted for the increase in the wealth gap.
Technology has brought about ease in different aspects which have contributed a positive effect on rising the income of the poor, especially in rural areas. The Internet is accessible everywhere and it is also affordable for most people, thereby promoting communication and trading. For instance, it has changed the business style of farmers who work in the countryside. In the past, they had to sell their products to a reseller. However, thanks to the popularity of the internet, they can start-up an e-commerce business and make the deal with customers by themselves. In this way, technology increased their income and shortened their distance with the rich.
On the flip side, the evolution of technology may exact a roll on the wealth gap. Since labor-saving technology and intelligent automation are adopted in serval countries to replace some workforce, many unskilled workers have become jobless and financially unstable. For instance, self check-out systems are installed in most supermarkets that allow customers to scan goods and pay the bill automatically, and in this way, the supermarket can save manpower which may potentially replace cashiers' jobs. As such, technology advancement poses a risk to decimate work opportunities of under-educated people and may lead to a widened income disparity.
To encapsulate, the technology advancement has helped some people to enhance their income. However, it has also caused huge unwanted effects on unskilled workers' work opportunities. Therefore, it has impelled to worsen economic inequality.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, however, if, may, so, therefore, while, for instance, in my opinion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 4.0 13.1623246493 30% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 7.85571142285 64% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 10.4138276553 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 7.30460921844 82% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 24.0651302605 87% => OK
Preposition: 43.0 41.998997996 102% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 8.3376753507 132% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1596.0 1615.20841683 99% => OK
No of words: 292.0 315.596192385 93% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.46575342466 5.12529762239 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.13376432452 4.20363070211 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.04269981151 2.80592935109 108% => OK
Unique words: 167.0 176.041082164 95% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.571917808219 0.561755894193 102% => OK
syllable_count: 512.1 506.74238477 101% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.60771543086 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 5.43587174349 92% => OK
Article: 5.0 2.52805611222 198% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.10420841683 95% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 0.809619238477 124% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.76152304609 147% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 16.0721442886 106% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 20.2975951904 84% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 46.4719284989 49.4020404114 94% => OK
Chars per sentence: 93.8823529412 106.682146367 88% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.1764705882 20.7667163134 83% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.58823529412 7.06120827912 65% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.67935871743 127% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 3.9879759519 25% => 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: 0.218306747511 0.244688304435 89% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0725734280208 0.084324248473 86% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0812101124315 0.0667982634062 122% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.146813206673 0.151304729494 97% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0921777682364 0.056905535591 162% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.9 13.0946893788 99% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 37.3 50.2224549098 74% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.44779559118 150% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 11.3001002004 109% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.15 12.4159519038 114% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.24 8.58950901804 108% => OK
difficult_words: 88.0 78.4519038076 112% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 9.78957915832 77% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.1190380762 87% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 10.7795591182 121% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 78.6516853933 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.0 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.