Recently, the phenomenon of digitalized gadgets and their multi-task ability to provide information on various topics has sparked an ongoing controversy, which inevitably leads to a moot question ''What are the advantages and disadvantages of using digital gadgets in the libraries?'' Whereas it is a widely held view that digital gadgets are beneficial to help people find information, I will discuss controversial aspects of that throughout this essay.
From the educational standpoint, better learning is bound up inextricably with reading desk books, which indicates they lead to both better results and better searching. As a well-known example, a longitudinal study conducted by eminent scientists in 2015 demonstrates the relationship between a successful finding of information and digital books in the library as well as an exponential increase in the number of readers. Consequently, my empirical evidence presented thus far supports the contention that the likelihood of digital gadgets is correlated positively with not only better educational outcomes but also more convenient searching experience.
Within the realm of technology, without the slightest doubt, more convenient searching experience attribute to better educational outcomes, in that it would come down to time-saving research, convenient searching, and faster reading. A salient example of such attribution is digitalized searching gadgets, which is a cause for concern since it was mistaken to take technology for granted. Had there been a paradigm shift earlier, scholars might have had the opportunity to pinpoint searching problems. Hence, it is reasonable to infer the pivotal role of digital gadgets in making searching in the library a better experience.
To conclude, as for myself, as the saying goes ''all's well that ends well,'' after analyzing what elaborated above, I firmly believe that digital gadgets are beneficial to help people find information, I will discuss controversial aspects of that throughout this essay.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, consequently, hence, if, so, thus, well, whereas, as for, 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: 4.0 6.10837438424 65% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 8.36945812808 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 5.94088669951 168% => OK
Pronoun: 20.0 20.9802955665 95% => OK
Preposition: 43.0 31.9359605911 135% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 5.75862068966 191% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1708.0 1207.87684729 141% => OK
No of words: 300.0 242.827586207 124% => OK
Chars per words: 5.69333333333 5.00649968141 114% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.16179145029 3.92707691288 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.1742015619 2.71678728327 117% => OK
Unique words: 178.0 139.433497537 128% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.593333333333 0.580463131201 102% => OK
syllable_count: 527.4 379.143842365 139% => 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: 3.0 1.56157635468 192% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 1.71428571429 233% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 0.931034482759 107% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 3.65517241379 164% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 10.0 12.6551724138 79% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 30.0 20.5024630542 146% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 57.4734721415 50.4703680194 114% => OK
Chars per sentence: 170.8 104.977214359 163% => OK
Words per sentence: 30.0 20.9669160288 143% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.9 7.25397266985 109% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.12807881773 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.33497536946 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 6.9802955665 143% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 0.0 2.75862068966 0% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 2.91625615764 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.195278329942 0.242375264174 81% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0773294279109 0.0925447433944 84% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0886753563522 0.071462118173 124% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.12168020308 0.151781067708 80% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0915042355565 0.0609392437508 150% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 20.4 12.6369458128 161% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 24.11 53.1260098522 45% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 13.0 6.54236453202 199% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 17.4 10.9458128079 159% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.31 11.5310837438 141% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.18 8.32886699507 122% => OK
difficult_words: 96.0 55.0591133005 174% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 16.5 9.94827586207 166% => OK
gunning_fog: 14.0 10.3980295567 135% => OK
text_standard: 17.0 10.5123152709 162% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 72.0 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.