The means of communicating in society today has changed markedly over the last ten years. In your opinion, what are the positive and negative impacts of this change?
Recently, the phenomenon of communication means and its corresponding impact has sparked a heated debate. Although contested by many that the matter of connection developments is highly beneficial, such an issue is regarded thoroughly as both constructive and positive by a substantial number of individuals. I am inclined to believe that technological improvement can be a plus, and I will analyze that throughout this essay.
From a social standpoint, world-scale communication can provide the society with some noticeable effects which are rooted in the fact that the merits of fast-growing technology, as well as online calls, are inextricably bound up. According to my own experience, when I was a university student, I performed an academic experiment which discovered the importance of free calls. Had it not been for this discovery, I wouldn’t have managed to do so. Thus, beneficial ramifications of both modern equipment and easy accessibility apparently can be seen.
On the other hand, within the realm of science, traditional communicating devices might increase the consequences of old-fashioned phones. Moreover, the fundamental aspects of mobile phones would relate to this reality that the demerits of making relationships pertain to social media. As an example, some scientific research undertaken by a prestigious university has asserted that the downside of news transmission is correlated negatively with reporters. Hence, it is correct to presume the preconceived notion of catastrophic events.
To conclude, while there are several compelling arguments on both sides, I profoundly believe that the benefits of connection methods enhancement far outweigh its drawbacks. Not only do the advantages of online chatting prove the significance of information technology, but also pinpoint long-term implications.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, apparently, but, hence, if, moreover, so, thus, well, while, as well as, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 10.5418719212 104% => 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: 21.0 20.9802955665 100% => OK
Preposition: 34.0 31.9359605911 106% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 5.75862068966 226% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1572.0 1207.87684729 130% => OK
No of words: 272.0 242.827586207 112% => OK
Chars per words: 5.77941176471 5.00649968141 115% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.06108636974 3.92707691288 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.47942543879 2.71678728327 128% => OK
Unique words: 183.0 139.433497537 131% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.672794117647 0.580463131201 116% => OK
syllable_count: 498.6 379.143842365 132% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.57093596059 115% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.6157635468 108% => OK
Article: 2.0 1.56157635468 128% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 1.71428571429 292% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 0.931034482759 215% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 5.0 3.65517241379 137% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 12.6551724138 103% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 20.5024630542 98% => OK
Sentence length SD: 44.0060512246 50.4703680194 87% => OK
Chars per sentence: 120.923076923 104.977214359 115% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.9230769231 20.9669160288 100% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.38461538462 7.25397266985 102% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.12807881773 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.33497536946 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 6.9802955665 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 2.75862068966 72% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 2.91625615764 103% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0891883826122 0.242375264174 37% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0270891946855 0.0925447433944 29% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0315908521182 0.071462118173 44% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0469577274239 0.151781067708 31% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0341195968571 0.0609392437508 56% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.3 12.6369458128 129% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 34.26 53.1260098522 64% => OK
smog_index: 13.0 6.54236453202 199% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.5 10.9458128079 123% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.24 11.5310837438 141% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.9 8.32886699507 131% => OK
difficult_words: 108.0 55.0591133005 196% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.5 9.94827586207 156% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.3980295567 96% => 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.