“More information available online so library books are useless.” Agree or disagree with the statement?
Recently, the phenomenon of availability of online documents as well as reducing the influence of books and its corresponding impacts has sparked a heated debate. Although contested by many that using online materials are highly rewarding, such issue is regarded thoroughly both constructive and positive by a substantial number of individuals. I profoundly inclined to believe that online information should be replaced in some certain cases. This essay will examine both views on this issue by providing some academic evidence before concluding.
From a technological standpoint, using electronic books can provide society with some noticeable benefits which are rooted in the fact that electronic publication and saving the environment, are essentially related. According to an academic survey conducted by Tehran University, digital documentation can lead to lessening the use of the paper sheets which consequently related to saving the trees and stopped deforestation. Thus, beneficial ramification both environmentally friendly and economically can be seen.
On the other side, some opponents argued that using digital information in publishing industry may lead to changing the true value of the library. Moreover, unlike library materials which are reputable and scientific, most of the online sources are not reliable enough and cannot be authenticated. Furthermore, according to an academic research, publication industry provides thousands of job opportunities for people which could be diminished by propagation of electronic books.
To recapitulate, I pen down saying that although some opponents stand against using digital publication, I highly tend to believe that using advanced technology should be encouraged as a way of saving the environment from damage. Not to mention that authorities can use reliable electronic devices and documents in the old libraries in case of aligning with technology.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
consequently, furthermore, if, may, moreover, so, then, thus, well, 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: 10.0 6.10837438424 164% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 8.36945812808 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 5.94088669951 185% => OK
Pronoun: 13.0 20.9802955665 62% => OK
Preposition: 39.0 31.9359605911 122% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 5.75862068966 243% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1646.0 1207.87684729 136% => OK
No of words: 282.0 242.827586207 116% => OK
Chars per words: 5.83687943262 5.00649968141 117% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.09790868904 3.92707691288 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.27207941484 2.71678728327 120% => OK
Unique words: 166.0 139.433497537 119% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.58865248227 0.580463131201 101% => OK
syllable_count: 534.6 379.143842365 141% => 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: 1.0 1.71428571429 58% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.931034482759 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 3.65517241379 137% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 12.6551724138 95% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 20.5024630542 112% => OK
Sentence length SD: 44.6439618911 50.4703680194 88% => OK
Chars per sentence: 137.166666667 104.977214359 131% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.5 20.9669160288 112% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.5 7.25397266985 90% => 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 : 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: 0.091742329897 0.242375264174 38% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0375903540625 0.0925447433944 41% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0373199553234 0.071462118173 52% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0559193451167 0.151781067708 37% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0265333150451 0.0609392437508 44% => 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: 17.8 12.6369458128 141% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 22.75 53.1260098522 43% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 13.0 6.54236453202 199% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.8 10.9458128079 144% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.89 11.5310837438 146% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.26 8.32886699507 123% => OK
difficult_words: 98.0 55.0591133005 178% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 9.94827586207 121% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.3980295567 108% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 10.5123152709 124% => 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.