Should library use digital gadgets to provide information on different topics? Pros & Cons
Recently, the phenomenon of utilizing digital gadgets to provide information and its corresponding impact has sparked has sparked a heated debate. Although contested by many that it is highly beneficial for people and students, such issue is regarded thoroughly both constructive and positive by a substantial number of people. I am inclined to believe that the effectiveness of advance technology can be plus and I will elaborate this in further essay.
From a social standpoint, using new technology like computers , notepad and apps in mobile phone can provide the students with some noticeable effects which are rooted in the fact the merits of saving time and cost, are inextricably bound up. According to my own experience when I was a university student, I performed an academic experiment, which discovered the influence of these gadgets in social and professional life. Thus, beneficial ramifications of both easy access to the information and studying at home with online material apparently can be seen.
From a realm of education department, using too much technology might increase the consequences of bad health. Moreover, the fundamental aspects of this issue could relate to this reality that the demerits of digital gadgets pertain to bad eyesight and lack in physical exercise. As a tangible example, some academic research undertaken by prestigious university has asserted that the downside of new technology is correlated negatively with the risk of providing incorrect information. 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 new technology and wide applications far outweigh its drawbacks.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 107, Rule ID: PHRASE_REPETITION[1]
Message: This phrase is duplicated. You should probably leave only 'has sparked'.
Suggestion: has sparked
...nformation and its corresponding impact has sparked has sparked a heated debate. Although contested by ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 26, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ther essay. From a social standpoint, using new technology like computers , no...
^^
Line 3, column 63, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma, but not before the comma
Suggestion: ,
...nt, using new technology like computers , notepad and apps in mobile phone can pr...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
apparently, hence, if, moreover, so, thus, while
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.5418719212 95% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 6.10837438424 98% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 8.36945812808 119% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 5.94088669951 135% => OK
Pronoun: 20.0 20.9802955665 95% => OK
Preposition: 39.0 31.9359605911 122% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 5.75862068966 156% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1508.0 1207.87684729 125% => OK
No of words: 273.0 242.827586207 112% => OK
Chars per words: 5.52380952381 5.00649968141 110% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.06481385082 3.92707691288 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.1494891323 2.71678728327 116% => OK
Unique words: 171.0 139.433497537 123% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.626373626374 0.580463131201 108% => OK
syllable_count: 487.8 379.143842365 129% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.57093596059 115% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.6157635468 87% => OK
Article: 2.0 1.56157635468 128% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.71428571429 175% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.931034482759 0% => OK
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: 42.9075500494 50.4703680194 85% => OK
Chars per sentence: 137.090909091 104.977214359 131% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.8181818182 20.9669160288 118% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.36363636364 7.25397266985 60% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.12807881773 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.33497536946 56% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 6.9802955665 72% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 2.75862068966 109% => OK
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: 0.117765755227 0.242375264174 49% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0405285854215 0.0925447433944 44% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0474737193042 0.071462118173 66% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0618287294322 0.151781067708 41% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0364577457796 0.0609392437508 60% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.0 12.6369458128 135% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 30.2 53.1260098522 57% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 13.0 6.54236453202 199% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.0 10.9458128079 137% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.03 11.5310837438 130% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.5 8.32886699507 126% => OK
difficult_words: 98.0 55.0591133005 178% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.0 9.94827586207 151% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 10.3980295567 112% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 10.5123152709 143% => 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.