Maintaining public libraries is a waste of money since computer technology can replace their functions. Do you agree or disagree?
Nobody can deny the growth of digital library resources. Some people argue that the development in technology as now can replace traditional library. I completely disagree this statement.
On the one hand, it is true that both conventional libraries and virtual ones have some same functions so virtual libraries can us as alternative. They have paved the way for access to a wide range of information. In addition, the development of computer science has brought more benefits for our life. Everyone can approach easily a great deal of information resources wherever they want instead of going to traditional libraries to search for them. Moreover, the information on the Internet regularly update which public libraries can not do that.
On the other hand, I still believe that public libraries have some functions that computer libraries can not take over. For example, traditional library is the best place that provide a great self-study zone with sound-proof rooms and fully-equipped materials for people especially students and undergraduates. They usually go to library to search more information for their thesis or sometimes they choose this to discuss with other team members to do homework. Besides, users have access to more reliable information. Nowadays, more and more online information that is publicized on the Internet can lead to a misinformed public whereas traditional libraries keep valuable materials.
In conclusion, I would argue that there are certain roles of public library that virtual library difficultly take over. I believe that it is not true when considering public library as waste of money.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-12-04 | iceber9 | 82 | view |
| 2019-11-04 | nagakhoa | 89 | view |
| 2019-08-07 | KatherineLQ | 73 | view |
| 2019-06-08 | hin07 | 84 | view |
| 2019-05-18 | Hau Nguyen | 84 | view |
- Maintaining public libraries is a waste of money since computer technology can replace their functions. Do you agree or disagree? 56
- The only way to improve safety of our roads is to give much stricter punishments for driving offences. What extent do you agree or disagree? 61
- Scientific research should be carried out and controlled by the governments rather than private companies. Do you agree or disagree? 78
Transition Words or Phrases used:
besides, if, moreover, so, still, whereas, for example, in addition, in conclusion, it is true, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 5.0 13.1623246493 38% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 7.85571142285 102% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 10.4138276553 48% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 12.0 7.30460921844 164% => OK
Pronoun: 26.0 24.0651302605 108% => OK
Preposition: 28.0 41.998997996 67% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 8.3376753507 132% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1377.0 1615.20841683 85% => OK
No of words: 256.0 315.596192385 81% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.37890625 5.12529762239 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.0 4.20363070211 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.97125459728 2.80592935109 106% => OK
Unique words: 138.0 176.041082164 78% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.5390625 0.561755894193 96% => OK
syllable_count: 440.1 506.74238477 87% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 5.43587174349 129% => OK
Article: 2.0 2.52805611222 79% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.10420841683 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.76152304609 84% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 16.0721442886 93% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 20.2975951904 84% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 43.7990360117 49.4020404114 89% => OK
Chars per sentence: 91.8 106.682146367 86% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.0666666667 20.7667163134 82% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.53333333333 7.06120827912 107% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.67935871743 81% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 3.9879759519 100% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 3.4128256513 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.268270892178 0.244688304435 110% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0963255881698 0.084324248473 114% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0647098220981 0.0667982634062 97% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.178128147197 0.151304729494 118% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0227612007574 0.056905535591 40% => 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: 12.4 13.0946893788 95% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 45.76 50.2224549098 91% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 11.3001002004 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.63 12.4159519038 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.37 8.58950901804 97% => OK
difficult_words: 63.0 78.4519038076 80% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 9.78957915832 77% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.1190380762 87% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.7795591182 83% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 56.1797752809 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.