Medical technology is responsible for the human’s life expectancy. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Recently, the phenomenon of the responsibility of medical technology for the human’s life expectancy and its corresponding impacts have sparked a heated debate. Although contested by many that the matter of complex procedures is highly beneficial, such issue is regarded thoroughly both constructive and consequently positive by a substantial number of individuals. I am inclined to believe that medical treatment can be a plus, and I will analyze that throughout this essay.
From a general standpoint, the importance of medical technology for the human’s life expectancy can provide the society with some noticeable effects which are rooted in the fact that crucial issues, as well as, ultimate outcomes, are inextricably bound up. According to my own experience, when I was a university student, I performed an academic experiment which discovered current policies. Thus, beneficial ramifications of both this common phenomenon and accordingly complicated procedures apparently can be seen.
Within a realm of public arena, improving medical technology for increasing the human’s life expectancy might increase the consequences of critical needs. As a tangible example, some scientific research undertaken by a prestigious university has asserted that the downside of creative processes is correlated negatively with vital issues. Hence, it is correct to presume the preconceived notion of this remarkable phenomenon.
To conclude, while there are several compelling arguments on both sides, I profoundly believe that the benefits of the effects of medical technology on human’s life expectancy far outweigh its drawback. Not only do the advantages of this unique phenomenon prove the significance total outcomes, but also pinpoint thorny issues’ potential implications.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
accordingly, also, apparently, but, consequently, hence, if, 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: 5.0 6.10837438424 82% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 8.36945812808 60% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 9.0 5.94088669951 151% => OK
Pronoun: 19.0 20.9802955665 91% => OK
Preposition: 29.0 31.9359605911 91% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.75862068966 87% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1549.0 1207.87684729 128% => OK
No of words: 261.0 242.827586207 107% => OK
Chars per words: 5.93486590038 5.00649968141 119% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.0193898071 3.92707691288 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.3695265011 2.71678728327 124% => OK
Unique words: 166.0 139.433497537 119% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.63601532567 0.580463131201 110% => OK
syllable_count: 504.9 379.143842365 133% => 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: 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: 4.0 3.65517241379 109% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 11.0 12.6551724138 87% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 20.5024630542 112% => OK
Sentence length SD: 47.6179700783 50.4703680194 94% => OK
Chars per sentence: 140.818181818 104.977214359 134% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.7272727273 20.9669160288 113% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.54545454545 7.25397266985 118% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.12807881773 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.33497536946 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 6.9802955665 100% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 2.75862068966 36% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.250532077611 0.242375264174 103% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0887389048159 0.0925447433944 96% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.103448844881 0.071462118173 145% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.154704978156 0.151781067708 102% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0282010965595 0.0609392437508 46% => 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: 18.4 12.6369458128 146% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 22.75 53.1260098522 43% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 14.6 6.54236453202 223% => Smog_index is high.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.8 10.9458128079 144% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 17.41 11.5310837438 151% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.89 8.32886699507 131% => OK
difficult_words: 101.0 55.0591133005 183% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 16.0 9.94827586207 161% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.3980295567 108% => 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.