Medical technology is responsible for a human's life expectancy. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Recently, the phenomenon of medical advancement and its corresponding impacts has sparked a heated debate. Although contested by many that innovative technologies in this field are highly beneficial, such issue is regarded thoroughly both constructive and positive by a substantial number of individuals. I profoundly inclined to believe that the complex medical treatment can be a plus, and I will discuss this claim through this essay by providing some academic evidence before the conclusion.
From a social standpoint, sophisticated healthcare system and professional medical practitioners can provide the society with some noticeable effects, which are rooted in the fact that the merit of easy access hospital medication, as well as ultimate advancements, are extremely bound up. From my own experience, when I was a college student, I participated in an academic survey, which is resulted in the importance of physical well-being and preventative diseases. Thus, the beneficial ramification of both emergency medication and individual insurance policy apparently can be seen.
Within the realm of science, pharmaceutical advancement might increase the consequences of medical needs. Moreover, the fundamental aspects of prescribed medication and wrong usage of them could affect the risk of health problems. According to academic research conducted by a prestigious institute, downsides of some unethical medical research is negatively correlated with a vital healthy lifestyle. Hence, it is correct to presume the preconceived notion of this affirmative phenomenon.
To recapitulate, I pen down saying that although some opponents of medical technology tend to believe that it has some disadvantages, I strongly inclined to believe that with regards to widespread illnesses, using new advancements in medical science could be positively beneficiary for the whole society.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
apparently, hence, if, moreover, so, thus, well, 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: 7.0 6.10837438424 115% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 8.36945812808 84% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 5.94088669951 151% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 20.9802955665 100% => OK
Preposition: 39.0 31.9359605911 122% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 5.75862068966 226% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1612.0 1207.87684729 133% => OK
No of words: 275.0 242.827586207 113% => OK
Chars per words: 5.86181818182 5.00649968141 117% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.07223819929 3.92707691288 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.37025589435 2.71678728327 124% => OK
Unique words: 175.0 139.433497537 126% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.636363636364 0.580463131201 110% => OK
syllable_count: 520.2 379.143842365 137% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.9 1.57093596059 121% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.6157635468 108% => OK
Article: 3.0 1.56157635468 192% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.71428571429 175% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 0.931034482759 107% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 3.65517241379 137% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 11.0 12.6551724138 87% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 20.5024630542 122% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 69.4697746274 50.4703680194 138% => OK
Chars per sentence: 146.545454545 104.977214359 140% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.0 20.9669160288 119% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.36363636364 7.25397266985 74% => 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: 0.0954550644508 0.242375264174 39% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0347054390905 0.0925447433944 38% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0245451615412 0.071462118173 34% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0606193135609 0.151781067708 40% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0231146907131 0.0609392437508 38% => 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: 18.7 12.6369458128 148% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 20.72 53.1260098522 39% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 13.0 6.54236453202 199% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 16.6 10.9458128079 152% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 17.0 11.5310837438 147% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 11.08 8.32886699507 133% => OK
difficult_words: 108.0 55.0591133005 196% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.5 9.94827586207 156% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 10.3980295567 115% => OK
text_standard: 17.0 10.5123152709 162% => 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.