Internet or media is bad for young people because they make the young generation poor in
communication and forming relationships. Do you agree with this opinion? Please use examples or your personal experience to support your idea.
Recently, the effects of the internet on young people phenomenon and its corresponding impact has sparked a heated debate. Although contested by many that the matter of forming relationships is highly beneficial, such issue is regarded thoroughly both constructive and positive by a substantial number of individuals. I am inclined to believe that mass media can be a plus, and I will analyze that throughout this essay.
From a social standpoint, consequences of using social media for young generation can provide the society with some noticeable effects which are rooted in the fact that merits of tools of communication, as well as means of communication, are inextricably bound up. According to my own experience, when I was a university student, I performed an academic experiment which discovered family relationships. Thus, beneficial ramifications of both family bond and social media apparently can be seen.
Within the realm of science, making poor communication might increase the consequences of channels of communication. Moreover, fundamental aspects of social relationships could relate to this reality that the demerits of youngsters, pertain to lack of social activities. As a tangible example, some scientific research undertaken by a prestigious university has asserted that the downside of cyberspace is correlated negatively with adolescents. Hence, it is correct to presume the preconceived notion of virtual space.
To conclude, while there are several compelling arguments on both sides, I profoundly believe that using the internet among younger adults far outweigh its drawbacks. Not only do the advantages of communication skills prove the significance of the close relationship, but also pinpoint social media implications.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, apparently, but, hence, if, moreover, so, thus, well, while, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.5418719212 95% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 6.10837438424 98% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 8.36945812808 60% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 10.0 5.94088669951 168% => OK
Pronoun: 18.0 20.9802955665 86% => OK
Preposition: 37.0 31.9359605911 116% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 5.75862068966 174% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1493.0 1207.87684729 124% => OK
No of words: 263.0 242.827586207 108% => OK
Chars per words: 5.67680608365 5.00649968141 113% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.02706775958 3.92707691288 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.40068954537 2.71678728327 125% => OK
Unique words: 169.0 139.433497537 121% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.642585551331 0.580463131201 111% => OK
syllable_count: 474.3 379.143842365 125% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.57093596059 115% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.6157635468 87% => OK
Article: 1.0 1.56157635468 64% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 1.71428571429 292% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 0.931034482759 215% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 3.65517241379 109% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 12.6551724138 95% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 20.5024630542 102% => OK
Sentence length SD: 49.3927007653 50.4703680194 98% => OK
Chars per sentence: 124.416666667 104.977214359 119% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.9166666667 20.9669160288 105% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.41666666667 7.25397266985 88% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.12807881773 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.33497536946 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 6.9802955665 57% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 2.75862068966 145% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 2.91625615764 137% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.158535417893 0.242375264174 65% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0471472532171 0.0925447433944 51% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0342656743992 0.071462118173 48% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0837941501339 0.151781067708 55% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0261409918202 0.0609392437508 43% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.3 12.6369458128 129% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 33.24 53.1260098522 63% => OK
smog_index: 13.0 6.54236453202 199% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 10.9458128079 126% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.66 11.5310837438 136% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.32 8.32886699507 124% => OK
difficult_words: 94.0 55.0591133005 171% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.0 9.94827586207 151% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.3980295567 100% => OK
text_standard: 16.0 10.5123152709 152% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 88.8888888889 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 80.0 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.