Communication is less between family members of late. Do you agree or disagree?
To what extent do you agree?
Over the past decades, the weakened communication among members in a typical family has translated to an impediment on societal development. It is widely believed that such seismic shift in family communication is a corollary of the advancement of technology and economy. The aim of this essay is set to explore how the reasons derived from these two spheres hinder the communication.
To begin with, it is intuitively obvious that the economic growth is perceived as a hindrance of communication, in particular to late family members. In fact, with the augmented workload accompanied with national prosperity, parents who are also the major societal workforce often have to dedicate more time to their rituals, resulting a shortfall of communication with family members. For instance, recent empirical research from the Family Planning Committee ascertained that the average hours of children’s communication with working parents have been halved over the previous decade. Seen in this light, the lengthened working hours undermine the family bonding by lessening the opportunity of communication.
Meanwhile, another pivotal factor to remember is that the technological derivatives tend to impede communications in families. What this means is the cell phone has a high tendency to stray our late family members from a valueable dinner that drives regular communication. Evidently, having interviewed by the Social Harmony Association, 70% children admitted that, rather than enjoying a vigorous communication with parents, they remain engrossed to the screen on having a family dinner. Consequently, distracting by these electronic devices, communication is unlikely to be sustainable between parents and children, and late members eventually estrange themselves from family life.
In conclusion, there is undeniable evidence that the economic development and burgeoning of smartphone are impeding the communication channels within an ordinary family, especially with the youth. Given such changes are irrevocable, it is predicted that this phenomenon of lessened communication in modern families will become a norm in foreseeable future.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2018-07-20 | RockyGagKy | 78 | view |
| 2018-07-20 | RockyGagKy | 84 | view |
| 2018-07-20 | RockyGagKy | 84 | view |
- Should museums and art galleries be free of charge for the general public, or should a charge, even a voluntary charge, be levied for admittance?Discuss this issue, and give your opinion. 78
- Some people think the media television and films negatively affect people s behaviour Others do not think so How do you think the media affects people s behaviour Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer 49
- The pie charts show the average consumption of food in the world in 2008 compared to two countries; China and India.Write a report to a university lecturer describing the data. 89
- Nowadays food has become easier to prepare. Has this change improved the way people live?Give reasons for your answer using your own ideas and experience. 89
- The charts below give information about travel to and from the UK, and about the most popular countries for UK residents to visit.Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant. 73
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, consequently, if, so, then, while, for instance, in conclusion, in fact, in particular, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 13.1623246493 114% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 1.0 7.85571142285 13% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 10.4138276553 38% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 9.0 7.30460921844 123% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 24.0651302605 87% => OK
Preposition: 51.0 41.998997996 121% => OK
Nominalization: 20.0 8.3376753507 240% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1840.0 1615.20841683 114% => OK
No of words: 316.0 315.596192385 100% => OK
Chars per words: 5.82278481013 5.12529762239 114% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.21620550194 4.20363070211 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.30389446485 2.80592935109 118% => OK
Unique words: 190.0 176.041082164 108% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.601265822785 0.561755894193 107% => OK
syllable_count: 595.8 506.74238477 118% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.9 1.60771543086 118% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 5.43587174349 74% => OK
Article: 3.0 2.52805611222 119% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.10420841683 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 0.809619238477 124% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.76152304609 126% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 16.0721442886 81% => 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: 24.0 20.2975951904 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 38.6512245571 49.4020404114 78% => OK
Chars per sentence: 141.538461538 106.682146367 133% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.3076923077 20.7667163134 117% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.23076923077 7.06120827912 117% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 8.67935871743 23% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 3.9879759519 75% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 3.4128256513 234% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.155975358727 0.244688304435 64% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.059708162787 0.084324248473 71% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0371738701424 0.0667982634062 56% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0961372310664 0.151304729494 64% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0369097332508 0.056905535591 65% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 18.1 13.0946893788 138% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 21.74 50.2224549098 43% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 13.0 7.44779559118 175% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 16.2 11.3001002004 143% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.77 12.4159519038 135% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.67 8.58950901804 124% => OK
difficult_words: 117.0 78.4519038076 149% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 9.78957915832 133% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 10.1190380762 115% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 10.7795591182 121% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 84.2696629213 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.5 Out of 9
---------------------
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.