Is it wise to say that life was better when technology was simple.. ? There are two schools of thought. One school answers the above questions in the affirmative where as the other school disagrees. According to my point of view modern technology made our lives more convenient than before, to explain this we can see few example as follows.
Development in computer technology and its use in various fields like banking, libraries, Court etc made all processes faster than ever. Initially we needed to be in row for several hours to finish one banking transactions whereas, now from single click by sitting in home we can complete as many transactions. We can get every information from every corner of the world. In courts now all evidences are stored in electronic format making less chances of evidence disappearing. Lots of paper is saved because of computers and alternately this is a big step towards tree saving. Approximately a decade ago letters were major means of communication with relatives or any corresponding person. Progress in this sector was done by advanced technology of mobile and emails. Now we can communicate faster and faster life has given more progress.
However the other school of thought differs in the line of reasoning. Its logic is also cogent enough to take into consideration. They assert that every process were slower from today as well as the expectations of work has been increased to such extent that people are being suffered from depression. Banking is considered as one of the major sector of our life in this field single mistake made by advanced technology can cause losses of many crores but such mistakes can be avoided by using more advanced technology.
Hence after holistic analysis, It is evident that points in favor of the first school overpowers the points in favor of the first school with its logic, cogency and rationale. To compit with other nations it is necessary to develop as well as accept new technology.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 66, Rule ID: DOUBLE_PUNCTUATION
Message: Two consecutive dots
Suggestion: .
...fe was better when technology was simple.. ? There are two schools of thought. One...
^^
Line 1, column 163, Rule ID: WHERE_AS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'whereas'?
Suggestion: whereas
... the above questions in the affirmative where as the other school disagrees. According t...
^^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 319, Rule ID: MANY_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun example seems to be countable; consider using: 'few examples'.
Suggestion: few examples
...than before, to explain this we can see few example as follows. Development in computer ...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 440, Rule ID: FEWER_LESS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'fewer'? The noun chances is countable.
Suggestion: fewer
... are stored in electronic format making less chances of evidence disappearing. Lots ...
^^^^
Line 3, column 841, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...nd faster life has given more progress. However the other school of thought diff...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: However,
...ster life has given more progress. However the other school of thought differs in ...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 521, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ided by using more advanced technology. Hence after holistic analysis, It is evi...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 1, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Hence,
...by using more advanced technology. Hence after holistic analysis, It is evident ...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, hence, however, if, so, well, whereas, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 15.1003584229 126% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 9.8082437276 61% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 13.8261648746 51% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 6.0 11.0286738351 54% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 23.0 43.0788530466 53% => OK
Preposition: 53.0 52.1666666667 102% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 8.0752688172 62% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1648.0 1977.66487455 83% => OK
No of words: 331.0 407.700716846 81% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.97885196375 4.8611393121 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.26537283232 4.48103885553 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.74754274677 2.67179642975 103% => OK
Unique words: 196.0 212.727598566 92% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.592145015106 0.524837075471 113% => OK
syllable_count: 531.0 618.680645161 86% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.51630824373 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 9.59856630824 42% => OK
Article: 0.0 3.08781362007 0% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 3.51792114695 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.86738351254 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.94265232975 81% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 20.6003584229 87% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 20.1344086022 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 48.9348269022 48.9658058833 100% => OK
Chars per sentence: 91.5555555556 100.406767564 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.3888888889 20.6045352989 89% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.72222222222 5.45110844103 68% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 8.0 5.5376344086 144% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 11.8709677419 67% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 3.85842293907 78% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.88709677419 143% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.208414952091 0.236089414692 88% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0643504938391 0.076458572812 84% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.125677094225 0.0737576698707 170% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.129073961051 0.150856017488 86% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.122024443139 0.0645574589148 189% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.2 11.7677419355 95% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 58.1214874552 92% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.10430107527 144% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 10.1575268817 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.6 10.9000537634 106% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.63 8.01818996416 108% => OK
difficult_words: 86.0 86.8835125448 99% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 10.002688172 85% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.0537634409 92% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.247311828 88% => 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: 76.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.0 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.