Medical technology can increase life expectancy. Is it a blessing or curse?
Recently modern medical practices and its corresponding impact have sparked a heated debate. Although contested by many that the matter of increased lifetime is highly beneficial, such issue is regarded both thoroughly constructive and positive by a substantial number of individuals. I am inclined to believe that longer life span can be a plus, and I will analyze that throughout this essay.
From a social standpoint, technological medicines can provide the society with some noticeable effects which are rooted in the fact that merits of advanced medical devices, as well as high-tech medical inventions, are inextricably bound up. According to my own experience, when I was a university student, I performed a medical experiment which discovered lifetime enhancement strategies. Thus, beneficial ramifications of both living longer and state-of-the-are medical tools apparently can be seen.
Whithin the realm of science, lifespan development analysis might increase the consequences of an aging population. Moreover, fundamental aspects of medical progression could relate to this reality that the demerits of more elderly people pertain to younger generations. As a tangible example, some medical research undertaken by a prestigious medical department has asserted that the downside of higher aging rates is correlated negatively with more skilled medical practitioners. Hence, it is correct to presume the preconceived notion of aging workforce.
To conclude, while there are several compelling arguments on both sides, I profoundly believe that the benefits of advancements in medical experiences far outweigh its drawbacks. Not only do the advantages of life expectancy improvements prove the significance of living more years but also pinpoint aging issues 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 : 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: 18.0 20.9802955665 86% => OK
Preposition: 31.0 31.9359605911 97% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 5.75862068966 139% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1536.0 1207.87684729 127% => OK
No of words: 262.0 242.827586207 108% => OK
Chars per words: 5.86259541985 5.00649968141 117% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.02323427807 3.92707691288 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.30559912979 2.71678728327 122% => OK
Unique words: 176.0 139.433497537 126% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.671755725191 0.580463131201 116% => OK
syllable_count: 493.2 379.143842365 130% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.9 1.57093596059 121% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.6157635468 87% => OK
Article: 0.0 1.56157635468 0% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 1.71428571429 292% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 0.931034482759 107% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 3.65517241379 82% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 12.6551724138 95% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 20.5024630542 102% => OK
Sentence length SD: 47.9693188982 50.4703680194 95% => OK
Chars per sentence: 128.0 104.977214359 122% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.8333333333 20.9669160288 104% => 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 : 6.0 6.9802955665 86% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 2.75862068966 36% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 2.91625615764 171% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.255544541229 0.242375264174 105% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0735089209049 0.0925447433944 79% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0415535340864 0.071462118173 58% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.131950940538 0.151781067708 87% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0271268673026 0.0609392437508 45% => 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: 17.1 12.6369458128 135% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 24.78 53.1260098522 47% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 11.2 6.54236453202 171% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.0 10.9458128079 137% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.71 11.5310837438 145% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 11.19 8.32886699507 134% => OK
difficult_words: 108.0 55.0591133005 196% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 9.94827586207 146% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.3980295567 100% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 10.5123152709 143% => 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.