Medical technology can increase the human’s life expectancy. Is it blessing or curse? Medical technology is responsible for the human’s life expectancy. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Recently, the phenomenon of life expectancy has sparked an ongoing controversy, which inevitably leads to a moot question “what are the positive and negative effects of medical technology?”. Whereas it is a widely held view that it is a blessing, I will discuss controversial aspects of that throughout this essay.
From the biotechnological standpoint, medical aids are bound up inextricably with expanding human’s life, which indicates they lead to both organ transplant and vaccination. As a well-known example, a longitudinal study conducted by eminent scientists in 2014 demonstrates the relationship between inoculation and disease prevention as well as an exponential increase in lifespan. Their academic criticism was impressive. Consequently, my empirical evidence presented thus far supports the contention that the likelihood of medical standars is correlated positively with not only changing public attitude but also regulatory policy reform.
Within the realm of social policy, without the slightest doubt, clinical aids attribute to hospitals, in that it would come down to long life, incurable, and painful disease. A salient example of such attribution is a medical agenda, which is a cause for concern since it was mistaken to take a feasible solution for granted. Had there been a paradigm shift earlier, scholars might have had the opportunity to pinpoint current system problems. Besides, this criterion is an indispensable part of modern lifestyle. Hence, it is reasonable to infer the pivotal role of public hygiene.
To conclude, as for myself, as the saying goes “all’s well that ends well,” after analyzing what elaborated above, I firmly believe that there are various reasons to support the idea of effectiveness of medical technologies. However, with the benefit of hindsight, we conceive the more we research, the further we discover.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, besides, but, consequently, hence, however, if, so, thus, well, whereas, as for, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 10.5418719212 123% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 6.10837438424 49% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 8.36945812808 60% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 9.0 5.94088669951 151% => OK
Pronoun: 22.0 20.9802955665 105% => OK
Preposition: 37.0 31.9359605911 116% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 5.75862068966 139% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1603.0 1207.87684729 133% => OK
No of words: 285.0 242.827586207 117% => OK
Chars per words: 5.62456140351 5.00649968141 112% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.10876417139 3.92707691288 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.20505525594 2.71678728327 118% => OK
Unique words: 195.0 139.433497537 140% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.684210526316 0.580463131201 118% => OK
syllable_count: 502.2 379.143842365 132% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.57093596059 115% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.6157635468 152% => OK
Article: 4.0 1.56157635468 256% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 3.0 1.71428571429 175% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 0.931034482759 107% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 3.65517241379 164% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 12.6551724138 103% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 20.5024630542 102% => OK
Sentence length SD: 59.7814560312 50.4703680194 118% => OK
Chars per sentence: 123.307692308 104.977214359 117% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.9230769231 20.9669160288 105% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.46153846154 7.25397266985 103% => 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: 0.190992861574 0.242375264174 79% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.048977154753 0.0925447433944 53% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0672442787315 0.071462118173 94% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.102693926242 0.151781067708 68% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0458041769411 0.0609392437508 75% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.0 12.6369458128 127% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 33.24 53.1260098522 63% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 6.54236453202 171% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 10.9458128079 126% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.32 11.5310837438 133% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.94 8.32886699507 131% => OK
difficult_words: 113.0 55.0591133005 205% => Less difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 16.5 9.94827586207 166% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.3980295567 100% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 10.5123152709 105% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 85.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 76.5 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.