Medical technology is responsible for the human’s life expectancy. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Recently, the phenomenon of medical technology and its corresponding impacts has sparked a debated heat. Although contested by many that eliminating paper cash from financial interactions is highly beneficial, such issue is regarded thoroughly both constructive and positive by a substantial number of individuals. I am inclined to believe that using more credit card can be a plus, and I will analyse that throughout this essay.
From the social standpoint, applying for credits instead of money can provide the society with some noticeable effects which are rooted in the fact that globalization, as well as technological advancements, are inextricably bound up. According to my own experience, when I was a university student, I performed an academic survey which discovered using paper money more time-consuming, comparing to credit cards. Thus, beneficial ramifications of both financial issues and managing time in the best way apparently can be seen.
Within the realm of personal considerations, the consistent need to paper cash might increase the consequences of inappropriate behaviours. Moreover, fundamental aspects of using cash in society relate to this reality that the demerits of money pertain to large-scale risk. As a tangible example, a scientific research undertook by Yale University has asserted that the downside of applying more cash is correlated negatively with people’s expectations. Hence, it is correct to presume the preconceived notion of generation discrimination.
To conclude, while there are several compelling arguments on both sides, I profoundly believe that the benefits of using more credit cards instead of cash far outweigh its drawbacks. Not only do the advantages of banking card prove the significance of technological achievements, but also pinpoint credit 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: 36.0 31.9359605911 113% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.75862068966 87% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1563.0 1207.87684729 129% => OK
No of words: 272.0 242.827586207 112% => OK
Chars per words: 5.74632352941 5.00649968141 115% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.06108636974 3.92707691288 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.42979633791 2.71678728327 126% => OK
Unique words: 174.0 139.433497537 125% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.639705882353 0.580463131201 110% => OK
syllable_count: 495.0 379.143842365 131% => 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: 3.0 1.56157635468 192% => 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: 22.0 20.5024630542 107% => OK
Sentence length SD: 43.7495238069 50.4703680194 87% => OK
Chars per sentence: 130.25 104.977214359 124% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.6666666667 20.9669160288 108% => 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 : 8.0 6.9802955665 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 2.75862068966 72% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 2.91625615764 69% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0587441650051 0.242375264174 24% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.022056569298 0.0925447433944 24% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0339439715134 0.071462118173 47% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0349809060686 0.151781067708 23% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.01091843669 0.0609392437508 18% => 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: 17.0 12.6369458128 135% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 32.22 53.1260098522 61% => OK
smog_index: 13.0 6.54236453202 199% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 10.9458128079 130% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.37 11.5310837438 142% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.71 8.32886699507 129% => OK
difficult_words: 103.0 55.0591133005 187% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.5 9.94827586207 156% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.3980295567 104% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 10.5123152709 105% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 11.1111111111 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 10.0 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.