More information available online so library books are useless.” Agree or disagree with the statement?
Recently, the phenomenon of online libraries and its corresponding impact has sparked a heated debate. Although contested by many that the matter of manuscripts is highly beneficial, such an issue is regarded thoroughly as both constructive and positive by a substantial number of individuals. I am inclined to believe that e-books publication can be a plus, and I will analyze that throughout this essay.
From a social standpoint, online information sources can provide the society with some noticeable effects which are rooted in the fact that the merits of searching online for an e-book, as well as finding a book, are inextricably bound up. According to my own experience, when I was a university student, I performed an academic experiment which discovered the importance of online bookshops. Had it not been for this discovery, I wouldn’t have managed to do so. Thus, beneficial ramifications of both modern teaching methods and providing information sources apparently can be seen.
On the other hand, within the realm of science, traditional libraries might increase the consequences of finding a journal. Moreover, the fundamental aspects of useless books would relate to this reality that the demerits of downloading PDF papers pertain to online materials. As an example, some scientific research undertaken by a prestigious university has asserted that the downside of uneducated novelists is correlated negatively with downloadable handouts. Hence, it is correct to presume the preconceived notion of old-fashioned libraries.
To conclude, while there are several compelling arguments on both sides, I profoundly believe that the benefits of library books far outweigh its drawbacks. Not only do the advantages of Internet-based material prove the significance of maintaining old books and sources, but also pinpoint long-term implications.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, apparently, but, hence, if, moreover, so, thus, well, while, as well as, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 10.5418719212 104% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 6.10837438424 98% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 8.36945812808 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 5.94088669951 168% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 20.9802955665 100% => OK
Preposition: 34.0 31.9359605911 106% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 5.75862068966 139% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1589.0 1207.87684729 132% => OK
No of words: 282.0 242.827586207 116% => OK
Chars per words: 5.63475177305 5.00649968141 113% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.09790868904 3.92707691288 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.31366044671 2.71678728327 122% => OK
Unique words: 183.0 139.433497537 131% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.648936170213 0.580463131201 112% => OK
syllable_count: 499.5 379.143842365 132% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.57093596059 115% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.6157635468 108% => 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: 5.0 3.65517241379 137% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 12.6551724138 103% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 20.5024630542 102% => OK
Sentence length SD: 44.5072961242 50.4703680194 88% => OK
Chars per sentence: 122.230769231 104.977214359 116% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.6923076923 20.9669160288 103% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.38461538462 7.25397266985 102% => 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 : 2.0 2.75862068966 72% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 2.91625615764 137% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.213879972519 0.242375264174 88% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0604347142949 0.0925447433944 65% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.047694674773 0.071462118173 67% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.107987777813 0.151781067708 71% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.041819528812 0.0609392437508 69% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.9 12.6369458128 126% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 33.24 53.1260098522 63% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 6.54236453202 171% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 10.9458128079 126% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.37 11.5310837438 133% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.84 8.32886699507 130% => OK
difficult_words: 110.0 55.0591133005 200% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 9.94827586207 146% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.3980295567 100% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 10.5123152709 105% => 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.