Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Television has destroyed communication among friends and family. Use specific reasons and examples to support your opinion.
The essential question of the prompt is whether the TV has played a vital role in destroying communication among friends and families. Some people, if asked, might argue that it has, while others would elaborate on the complexity of the issue because of too many factors involved. As far as I am concerned, I adopt a firm position that TV is to blame for worsening communication between peers and relatives because watching TV requires time which otherwise could be spent on interaction with friends.
Everybody would agree that television is addictive. The more you watch it the stronger temptation is to continue watching it because a movie or an interesing programm is not yet ended and people yearn to find out a conlusion. Obviously, most people do not communicate with others while sitting in front of a TV-set, thus the time spent is a stolen time by TV which in other case you may spend with your friends sharing ideas or discussing events. I’m also inclined to think that overwatching a TV makes one’s life unhappy. To illustrate that idea let’s consider the following example. I remember a few years back I used to watch television almost for 3 hours a day reaching up to 30 hours on some weeks. I didn’t have many friends back then. Maybe two or three peers I used to hang out with once a week. But then I read a book describing the very situation I had and explaining the consequences of such way of life. I decided to limit myself to only 10 hours of TV a week and you wouldn’t believe it but suddenly I had a plenty of friends and spent time happily with them.
Admittedly, despite of all the reasonable evidence of the contrary, some people argue that TV is a helpful factor in communication on the premise that while watching a TV one may learn new topics to discuss with friends and thus make conversations more involving. However, such position should be taken with a grain of salt. Those assertions are most likely to be made under assumption that TV is the only source of topics for discussion which obviusly does not hold true. Indeed, a research by VM instituation in Ukraine together with my own observations has provided me with a clear picture of what makes an interesting conversation. The discovered results suggest that most interesting topics to discuss can be found in books.
In summary, while various perspectives and viewpoints on the issue exist, it is evident that there are more agruments to claim that television plays negative role in building up successful communication process rather than insist on the positive effect from watching a “talking box”. The time spent in front of a TV may be spent more usefully and the best source to find topics for conversations is not a TV but books. I suggest we all read more books and maybe subsequently people will become better communication partners. After all, our all life is about communication and interaction with other people.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 291, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... of too many factors involved. As far as I am concerned, I adopt a firm position ...
^^
Line 5, column 482, Rule ID: A_UNCOUNTABLE[1]
Message: Uncountable nouns are usually not used with an indefinite article. Use simply 'research'.
Suggestion: research
...ch obviusly does not hold true. Indeed, a research by VM instituation in Ukraine together ...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 268, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'an' instead of 'a' if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g. 'an article', 'an hour'
Suggestion: an
...st on the positive effect from watching a 'talking box'. The time spent...
^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, however, if, may, so, then, thus, while, after all, in summary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 15.1003584229 119% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 9.8082437276 102% => OK
Conjunction : 18.0 13.8261648746 130% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 11.0286738351 127% => OK
Pronoun: 38.0 43.0788530466 88% => OK
Preposition: 66.0 52.1666666667 127% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 8.0752688172 211% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2453.0 1977.66487455 124% => OK
No of words: 507.0 407.700716846 124% => OK
Chars per words: 4.8382642998 4.8611393121 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.74517233601 4.48103885553 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.9094901799 2.67179642975 109% => OK
Unique words: 264.0 212.727598566 124% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.520710059172 0.524837075471 99% => OK
syllable_count: 757.8 618.680645161 122% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.51630824373 99% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 9.59856630824 83% => OK
Article: 5.0 3.08781362007 162% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 3.51792114695 142% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.86738351254 54% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.94265232975 81% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 20.6003584229 107% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 20.1344086022 114% => OK
Sentence length SD: 67.187984094 48.9658058833 137% => OK
Chars per sentence: 111.5 100.406767564 111% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.0454545455 20.6045352989 112% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.31818181818 5.45110844103 61% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.5376344086 54% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 11.8709677419 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 3.85842293907 104% => 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: 0.172635767321 0.236089414692 73% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0508513361357 0.076458572812 67% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0426435471637 0.0737576698707 58% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.102780128368 0.150856017488 68% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0388487135991 0.0645574589148 60% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.9 11.7677419355 110% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 56.59 58.1214874552 97% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.10430107527 144% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 10.1575268817 109% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.09 10.9000537634 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.05 8.01818996416 100% => OK
difficult_words: 105.0 86.8835125448 121% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 10.002688172 115% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.0537634409 111% => 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: 70.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 21.0 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.