Anybody can use a mobile phone to answer the work and personal calls at any time or 7 days a week. Does this development have more positive or negative effects on both individuals and society?
Nowadays, there is an ongoing controversy regarding whether it is superior for individuals to utilize their mobile phones at any time. Although a school of thought acknowledges that this inclination might be beneficial in some facets, I would align myself with the opinion that this proclivity could be riddled with numerous pitfalls.
On the one hand, a plethora of justifications has convinced some individuals to advocate the former perception. The first reason stems from the fact that using mobile phones might be quite time-saving in terms of keeping in touch with other people. For example, a person only needs to spare about one or two minutes for dialing a phone number, compared to around one or two hours that he needs to allocate for a face-to-face meeting. This enables individuals to interact with others in an easier way without needing to lavish time on communicating directly. Furthermore, in workplace, using mobile phones could be considered to be one of the most effective ways for departments of a company to catch in touch with each other. This could be perfectly exemplified by the fact that the employees of some offices such as IGM 3 or Certiport, which are the subsidiaries of Microsoft, can interact with the manager department in the USA in order to handle strenuous tasks. Hence, the corporation could attain remarkable success and thrive.
On the other hand, there are a host of compelling factors persuading me to concede that this trend could have some drawbacks. Firstly, leveraging mobile phones excessively can pose a threat to the health of users. To illustrate, exposure too much to green light emitted from mobile phones can render people using them more susceptible to some optical diseases like seeing impairment or long-sightedness. Therefore, they ought to reduce the frequency of using this electrical device to prevent from suffering from health problems. Moreover, being over dependent on mobile phones to communicate might make the relationships between workers in a firm eroded. By interacting online, employees cannot have mutual understanding and sympathy towards other counterparts. It could lead to the fact that workers might struggle with cooperating and devoting their endeavors to tackle issues that their companies have to confront.
In conclusion, explicitly, it is indisputable that there are plenty of benefits that people are able to derive from using mobile phone to keep in touch with others; nevertheless, I want to affirm that this propensity might exert some unfavorable influences on users and society.
- The pictures illustrate how the layout of a school library changed over five years 67
- The graph below shows the production of three forest industry products in a European country namely timber pulp and paper from 1980 to 2000 56
- The first chart below shows the percentages of women and men in a country involved in some kinds cooking cleaning pet caring and repairing the house The second chart show the amount of time each gender spent on each task per day Summarize the information 73
- The pictures show information about average income and spending on food and clothes by an average family in a city in the UK 61
- People are responsible for their happiness Others feel happiness depends on other factors in their life Discuss both views and give your own opinion 89
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 32, Rule ID: THERE_RE_MANY[3]
Message: Possible agreement error. Did you mean 'hosts'?
Suggestion: hosts
...thrive. On the other hand, there are a host of compelling factors persuading me to ...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, firstly, furthermore, hence, if, moreover, nevertheless, regarding, so, therefore, for example, in conclusion, such as, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 13.1623246493 106% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 17.0 7.85571142285 216% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 8.0 10.4138276553 77% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 7.30460921844 164% => OK
Pronoun: 31.0 24.0651302605 129% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 75.0 41.998997996 179% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 8.3376753507 60% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2164.0 1615.20841683 134% => OK
No of words: 410.0 315.596192385 130% => OK
Chars per words: 5.27804878049 5.12529762239 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.49982852243 4.20363070211 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.96836783679 2.80592935109 106% => OK
Unique words: 230.0 176.041082164 131% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.560975609756 0.561755894193 100% => OK
syllable_count: 678.6 506.74238477 134% => 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: 4.0 2.52805611222 158% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.10420841683 48% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.76152304609 126% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 16.0721442886 106% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 20.2975951904 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 52.7117249913 49.4020404114 107% => OK
Chars per sentence: 127.294117647 106.682146367 119% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.1176470588 20.7667163134 116% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.47058823529 7.06120827912 120% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 8.67935871743 150% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 3.9879759519 50% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 3.4128256513 59% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.198980081756 0.244688304435 81% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0664474918293 0.084324248473 79% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0423346340312 0.0667982634062 63% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.124128009258 0.151304729494 82% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0259227118634 0.056905535591 46% => 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: 15.5 13.0946893788 118% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 38.66 50.2224549098 77% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 11.3001002004 122% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.64 12.4159519038 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.72 8.58950901804 113% => OK
difficult_words: 127.0 78.4519038076 162% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 9.78957915832 123% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 10.1190380762 115% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 10.7795591182 111% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 78.6516853933 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.0 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.