Nowadays, due to the advancements in the technological field, people are attracting towards cardless society. It is irrefutable to say that card less system plays a vital role in making the human life easier. As such, there are both merits and demerits associated with card less community, although I am of the opinion that the former outdo the latter.
There are myriad of arguments in favour of my stance. The most preponderant one is that online transactions can transfer the money from one place to another within a few hours that can save the travelling time and expenses. Cardless payments not only beneficial for the government to identify the black money, but it is also advantageous for the people to protect their money from being stolen. For example, according to the startling new research, the incidents related to money theft has decreased drastically after the introduction of cardless payments. Thus, needless to say, that all these merits stand the individuals in good stead, as far as their security and privacy is concerned.
There are, however, some pitfalls that can certainly overwhelm the potential benefits of using cardless payments. The primary one stems from the fact that the use of card less system can be useful for the urban population but not for the rural area people. This is because rural area population is not highly educated and tech savvy. To exemplify, a recent survey done by the Sydney Universty revealed that people with less education usually made mistakes when they use cardless payment systems. So, for those people, the card less society is less beneficial.
In view of arguments outlined above, it can be concluded that despite having some drawbacks the role of card less transactions in transferring the money in very less time is instrumental indeed.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 110, Rule ID: FEWER_LESS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'fewer'? The noun transactions is countable.
Suggestion: fewer
... having some drawbacks the role of card less transactions in transferring the money ...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, however, if, so, thus, for example
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 10.5418719212 142% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 6.10837438424 82% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 8.36945812808 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 5.94088669951 168% => OK
Pronoun: 20.0 20.9802955665 95% => OK
Preposition: 34.0 31.9359605911 106% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.75862068966 104% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1507.0 1207.87684729 125% => OK
No of words: 297.0 242.827586207 122% => OK
Chars per words: 5.07407407407 5.00649968141 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.15134772569 3.92707691288 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.71368774342 2.71678728327 100% => OK
Unique words: 172.0 139.433497537 123% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.579124579125 0.580463131201 100% => OK
syllable_count: 472.5 379.143842365 125% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.57093596059 102% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.6157635468 87% => OK
Article: 5.0 1.56157635468 320% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 3.0 1.71428571429 175% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 0.931034482759 107% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 3.65517241379 82% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 12.6551724138 111% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 20.5024630542 102% => OK
Sentence length SD: 41.7915136391 50.4703680194 83% => OK
Chars per sentence: 107.642857143 104.977214359 103% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.2142857143 20.9669160288 101% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.21428571429 7.25397266985 44% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.12807881773 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.33497536946 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 6.9802955665 158% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 2.75862068966 72% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 2.91625615764 34% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.127011518819 0.242375264174 52% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0466666970666 0.0925447433944 50% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0640295509512 0.071462118173 90% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0840723223736 0.151781067708 55% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0397717741184 0.0609392437508 65% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.1 12.6369458128 104% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 53.1260098522 94% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.54236453202 135% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 10.9458128079 105% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.13 11.5310837438 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.41 8.32886699507 113% => OK
difficult_words: 89.0 55.0591133005 162% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 9.94827586207 111% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.3980295567 100% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 10.5123152709 114% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 72.0 Out of 90
---------------------
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.