Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Sometimes people think nowadays the media (TV, newspaper, Internet) are less concerned about the accuracy of news than in the past, and the incorrect information may cause more problem to the public.
In my opinion, nowadays the media aren’t less concern about the accuracy of the news than in the past. Indeed, they may even more accurate than before because there are a lot of sources that compete together and moreover, the development of technology helps to record proves for everything. I will illustrate my reasons in the following paragraphs.
First, the existence of lots of sources that are competing together to become more trustworthy among people leads to more accuracy. In other words, today, people don’t have just one or two ways to understand the news. Indeed, there are a variety of sources like different internet websites, Instagram, Twitter, newspapers, tv programs, etc of which we could check for more accurate news. Therefore, after a while, if you find a resource that you have read more accurate news through it, you, certainly, would trust it more than other resources. For instance, I usually used a specific website for checking the news about my favorite football team because I was sure that its news was more accurate than others. However, recently, I read a report about the team from that website which didn't convince me at all. Thus, I looked for the subject in other sources. Surprisingly, I found another website that had brought a lot of convincing evidence for that specific subject. As a result, the existence of a large number of resources helps people to find more accurate news.
Second, today, the development of technology helps the media to prove their claims more easily. In other words, each media could easily record evidence by taking photos and videos or by recording voices, etc. Therefore, unlike past times, people have this opportunity to believe news in which there is evidence for them. For example, I remember when I was a child, I was watching a football match in the stadium and a huge argument took place about a penalty foul scene. Although lots of experts talk about their opinion, it never became obvious that what happened exactly in that scene because the quality of films that were taken by the cameras was very low. However, today, thanks to the development of technology you could easily interpret any foul scene because you can see high-quality videos of the scene from different angles and with slow-motion speed.
Based on the aforementioned reasons, it can be concluded that nowadays you could access more accurate news rather than the past.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 791, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: didn't
... about the team from that website which didnt convince me at all. Thus, I looked for ...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 1007, Rule ID: LARGE_NUMBER_OF[1]
Message: Specify a number, remove phrase, or simply use 'many' or 'numerous'
Suggestion: many; numerous
... subject. As a result, the existence of a large number of resources helps people to find more acc...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, however, if, look, may, moreover, second, so, therefore, thus, while, for example, for instance, as a result, in my opinion, in other words
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 15.1003584229 73% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 9.8082437276 92% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 13.8261648746 43% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 15.0 11.0286738351 136% => OK
Pronoun: 40.0 43.0788530466 93% => OK
Preposition: 55.0 52.1666666667 105% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 8.0752688172 124% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2024.0 1977.66487455 102% => OK
No of words: 405.0 407.700716846 99% => OK
Chars per words: 4.9975308642 4.8611393121 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.48604634366 4.48103885553 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.601876382 2.67179642975 97% => OK
Unique words: 210.0 212.727598566 99% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.518518518519 0.524837075471 99% => OK
syllable_count: 645.3 618.680645161 104% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.51630824373 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 9.59856630824 104% => OK
Article: 4.0 3.08781362007 130% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 3.51792114695 114% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.86738351254 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.94265232975 81% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 20.6003584229 92% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 20.1344086022 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 42.0803873885 48.9658058833 86% => OK
Chars per sentence: 106.526315789 100.406767564 106% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.3157894737 20.6045352989 103% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.68421052632 5.45110844103 141% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.5376344086 36% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 11.8709677419 93% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 3.85842293907 78% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.88709677419 102% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.232756755927 0.236089414692 99% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0750628773125 0.076458572812 98% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0709274461689 0.0737576698707 96% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.161113099842 0.150856017488 107% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0479810180884 0.0645574589148 74% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.8 11.7677419355 109% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 58.1214874552 86% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.10430107527 51% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 10.1575268817 113% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.72 10.9000537634 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.95 8.01818996416 99% => OK
difficult_words: 84.0 86.8835125448 97% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 10.002688172 85% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.0537634409 103% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 10.247311828 117% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Better to have 5 paragraphs with 3 arguments. And try always support/against one side but compare two sides, like this:
para 1: introduction
para 2: reason 1. address both of the views presented for reason 1
para 3: reason 2. address both of the views presented for reason 2
para 4: reason 3. address both of the views presented for reason 3
para 5: conclusion.
So how to find out those reasons. There is a formula:
reasons == advantages or
reasons == disadvantages
for example, we can always apply 'save time', 'save/make money', 'find a job', 'make friends', 'get more information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.
or we can apply 'waste time', 'waste money', 'no job', 'make bad friends', 'get bad information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.
Rates: 73.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.0 Out of 30
---------------------
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.