Medical technology is responsible for the human's life expectancy. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Essay topics:

Medical technology is responsible for the human's life expectancy. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Recently, the phenomenon of medical technology is responsible for the human 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 the human's life expectancy can be a plus, and I will analyze that throughout this essay.

From a general standpoint, responding to the human life expectancy with medical technology 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 the realm of a public arena, new medical technology is the very best option for 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 human's life expectancy increases with using medical technology far outweigh its drawbacks. Not only do the advantages of this unique phenomenon prove the significance of total outcomes, but also pinpoint thorny issues’ potential implications.

Votes
Average: 8.8 (1 vote)
Essay Categories

Comments

Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 392, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'humans'' or 'human's'?
Suggestion: humans'; human's
...uals. I am inclined to believe that the humans life expectancy can be a plus, and I wi...
^^^^^^

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 : 12.0 10.5418719212 114% => 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: 3.0 5.75862068966 52% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1523.0 1207.87684729 126% => OK
No of words: 264.0 242.827586207 109% => OK
Chars per words: 5.76893939394 5.00649968141 115% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.03089032464 3.92707691288 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.24551811824 2.71678728327 119% => OK
Unique words: 169.0 139.433497537 121% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.640151515152 0.580463131201 110% => OK
syllable_count: 498.6 379.143842365 132% => 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: 1.0 1.56157635468 64% => 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: 24.0 20.5024630542 117% => OK
Sentence length SD: 44.6669955993 50.4703680194 89% => OK
Chars per sentence: 138.454545455 104.977214359 132% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.0 20.9669160288 114% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.54545454545 7.25397266985 118% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.12807881773 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.33497536946 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 6.9802955665 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 2.75862068966 36% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.188401277119 0.242375264174 78% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0683272756732 0.0925447433944 74% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0800226750309 0.071462118173 112% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.115373059985 0.151781067708 76% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.038357021127 0.0609392437508 63% => OK

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.7 12.6369458128 140% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 21.74 53.1260098522 41% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 13.0 6.54236453202 199% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 16.2 10.9458128079 148% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.48 11.5310837438 143% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.93 8.32886699507 131% => OK
difficult_words: 102.0 55.0591133005 185% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 16.0 9.94827586207 161% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 10.3980295567 112% => 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.