Should library use digital gadgets to provide information on different topics? Pros & Cons
Recently, the phenomenon of utilizing the technological features in libraries in order to reaching information ideally has sparked a heated debate. Although this idea is beneicial as it regarded by the substantial number of individuals both constructive and positive, others hold opponents views. I am inclined to believe that this decision can be plus as it could develop some brilliant aspects for its adherents.
From a social standpoint, there are several merits of allocating modern technological features in libraries for boosting the process of achieving information. These are rooted in the fact of the development which is becoming an essential factor in developed countries. From my own experience, whem I was a university student, I performed an academic experiment which discovered the benefits of using modern libraries. Undoubtedly, the process of searching topics will become more faster and easier than past. Furthermore, due to existing a great deal amount of information and in order to diminish the distraction of finding appropriate informationm modern libraries decided to provide these facilities. Moreover, this decision can lead to save a good deal amount of time annually, and pupils, researchers, scientists and faculties can devote their time to read more.
On the one hand, there is no doubt, the idea of equiping libraries with modern features for gaining information has some opponents. They argue that these features kill the traditional sense of finding information in these places. According to research undertaken by a prestigious university, an array of dwellers would like to find their information by reading different books, magazins and articles and during this process they can familiar with some other appropriate information.
In conclusion, while there are several compelling arguments on both sides, I profoundly believe that the advantages of providing some new features in libraries are more outweigh of their drawbacks.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 476, Rule ID: MOST_COMPARATIVE[2]
Message: Use only 'faster' (without 'more') when you use the comparative.
Suggestion: faster
...process of searching topics will become more faster and easier than past. Furthermore, due ...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 138, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...hat the advantages of providing some new features in libraries are more outweigh ...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
furthermore, if, moreover, so, well, while, in conclusion, no doubt
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 10.5418719212 85% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 6.10837438424 115% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 8.36945812808 84% => OK
Relative clauses : 5.0 5.94088669951 84% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 20.9802955665 114% => OK
Preposition: 45.0 31.9359605911 141% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 5.75862068966 191% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1676.0 1207.87684729 139% => OK
No of words: 300.0 242.827586207 124% => OK
Chars per words: 5.58666666667 5.00649968141 112% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.16179145029 3.92707691288 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.12215025619 2.71678728327 115% => OK
Unique words: 176.0 139.433497537 126% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.586666666667 0.580463131201 101% => OK
syllable_count: 528.3 379.143842365 139% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.57093596059 115% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.6157635468 130% => OK
Article: 4.0 1.56157635468 256% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 2.0 1.71428571429 117% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 0.931034482759 107% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 3.65517241379 137% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 12.6551724138 103% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 20.5024630542 112% => OK
Sentence length SD: 43.3533711826 50.4703680194 86% => OK
Chars per sentence: 128.923076923 104.977214359 123% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.0769230769 20.9669160288 110% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.15384615385 7.25397266985 71% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.12807881773 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.33497536946 37% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 6.9802955665 158% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 2.75862068966 36% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 2.91625615764 34% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.128426078229 0.242375264174 53% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0441576254541 0.0925447433944 48% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0359064503103 0.071462118173 50% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0752511481538 0.151781067708 50% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0191472804824 0.0609392437508 31% => 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: 16.4 12.6369458128 130% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 31.21 53.1260098522 59% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 11.2 6.54236453202 171% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.6 10.9458128079 133% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.44 11.5310837438 134% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.94 8.32886699507 119% => 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: 12.0 10.5123152709 114% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 77.7777777778 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 70.0 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.