The use of mobile phones is as antisocial as smoking. Smoking is banned in certain places so mobile phones should be banned like smoking. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
The use of mobile phones has become ubiquitous in modern society, but some people argue that it is as antisocial as smoking and should be banned in certain places. I disagree with this view for two reasons.
First, mobile phones are not inherently antisocial, but rather depend on how people use them. Unlike smoking, which always produces harmful effects on the health of smokers and non-smokers alike, mobile phones can be used for various purposes that are beneficial or harmless to others. For example, people can use mobile phones to communicate with their family and friends, access information and entertainment, or perform work and study tasks. These activities do not necessarily disturb or harm anyone around them, as long as they are done with respect and courtesy. Therefore, mobile phones are not comparable to smoking in terms of their antisocial impact.
Second, banning mobile phones in certain places would be impractical and unnecessary, as it would infringe on people’s rights and freedoms. Unlike smoking, which can be easily prohibited in public places such as restaurants, offices, or parks, mobile phones are more difficult to regulate and enforce. People may need to use their mobile phones for emergency situations, personal reasons, or professional obligations. Banning mobile phones would deprive them of their right to privacy and autonomy, and cause them inconvenience and frustration. Therefore, mobile phones are not comparable to smoking in terms of their legal implications.
In conclusion, I believe that the use of mobile phones is not as antisocial as smoking, and should not be banned like smoking. Mobile phones have different uses and effects than smoking, and banning them would be unreasonable and unfair. Instead of imposing a blanket ban on mobile phones, people should be educated and encouraged to use them responsibly and respectfully in public places. This way, mobile phones can be a source of social connection and convenience, rather than social isolation and conflict.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-09-08 | zhao_kangg | 78 | view |
| 2023-08-26 | Bigk016 | 70 | view |
| 2023-08-15 | nphan | 67 | view |
| 2023-08-09 | panekajizhongben | 78 | view |
| 2023-08-03 | Sang Sang Sang | 73 | view |
- Nowadays the way many people interact with each other has changed because of technology In what ways has technology affected the types of relationships people make Has this become a positive or negative development 89
- The bar chart below shows the percentage of government spending on roads and transport in 4 countries in the years 1990 1995 2000 2005 73
- The diagram below shows the manufacturing process for making sugar from sugar cane Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant 89
- Increasing the price of petrol is the best way to solve growing traffic and pollution problems To what extent do you agree or disagree What other measures do you think might be effective 78
- The use of mobile phones is as antisocial as smoking Smoking is banned in certain places so mobile phones should be banned like smoking To what extent do you agree or disagree 73
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, if, may, second, so, therefore, for example, in conclusion, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 13.1623246493 122% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 7.85571142285 165% => OK
Conjunction : 27.0 10.4138276553 259% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 5.0 7.30460921844 68% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 22.0 24.0651302605 91% => OK
Preposition: 33.0 41.998997996 79% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 8.3376753507 84% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1712.0 1615.20841683 106% => OK
No of words: 319.0 315.596192385 101% => OK
Chars per words: 5.36677115987 5.12529762239 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.22617688928 4.20363070211 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.83309974102 2.80592935109 101% => OK
Unique words: 161.0 176.041082164 91% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.504702194357 0.561755894193 90% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 542.7 506.74238477 107% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 5.43587174349 74% => OK
Article: 1.0 2.52805611222 40% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.10420841683 95% => OK
Conjunction: 8.0 0.809619238477 988% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 2.0 4.76152304609 42% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 16.0721442886 100% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 20.2975951904 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 35.0271657967 49.4020404114 71% => OK
Chars per sentence: 107.0 106.682146367 100% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.9375 20.7667163134 96% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.9375 7.06120827912 70% => 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 : 7.0 3.9879759519 176% => OK
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: 0.467584505861 0.244688304435 191% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.181245791882 0.084324248473 215% => Sentence topic similarity is high.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.104779139874 0.0667982634062 157% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.327455887005 0.151304729494 216% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0445667603087 0.056905535591 78% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.8 13.0946893788 105% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 43.73 50.2224549098 87% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 11.3001002004 105% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.87 12.4159519038 112% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.93 8.58950901804 104% => OK
difficult_words: 88.0 78.4519038076 112% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 9.78957915832 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.1190380762 95% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 10.7795591182 130% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 73.0337078652 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 6.5 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.