Today, more and more people are using mobile phone and computer. Thus, the ability to communicae face to face is losing. Do you agree or disagree?
This is a widely held view that, cyber addiction has substantial influence on the every aspects of our lives, stressing no immunity has been granted for the way of communication among people. Therefore, some are quite sanguine about ongoing trend, emphasizing we are better to harbor a positive outlook. Needless to say, opponents complain about all conceivable repercussions one the technology is widely involved in shaping human relations, claiming we should conserve and fully appreciate conventional means of interaction.
Of course, the benefits of communications technology are undeniable. You can have instant contact with anyone, regardless of how far away they are, and track hundreds of friends, well acquaintances, through statuses, tweets and photos that document their life. Yet, there are unavoidable drawbacks to each of these methods, perhaps the most prominent being the feeding of our laziness and lack of proper communication. Take the case of using mobile mobile phone as a salient example. While mobile technology allows us to make phone calls on-the-go and therefore arguably permitting more frequent contact, the nature of these phone calls is often rushed and fleeting, as we squeeze a call to our mother in a ten minute walk from our front door to the train station. In addition, signal is lost, connections can be poor and background noise is a great distraction, which ultimately fragments our conversation. And then there are those moments when a mobile phone interrupts our face-to-face contact, often known as ‘phubbing.’ People answering the phone or texting in the middle of conversations is becoming more and more common, and is drastically changing the unspoken rules and etiquette of human interaction.
Nevertheless, those who oppose virtual communication have a number of persuasive reasons for their argument. First of all, the language of texting on social networks such as facebook or twitter is far different from those applicable in the real life. That kind of language, once used with high-frequency, tends to make verbal language deteriorate gradually. Secondly, an enormous number of addictive applications in smartphones and tablets, which are always at hand, seem to prevent individuals from communicating with other people around them. Instead of spending their time on outdoor activities, which boost union and social skills, they are overwhelmed with strategies to win useless games and applications.
In conclusion, despite some advantages that mobile phones and computers bring to us, the use of these devices should be restricted by each individual to enhance their ability to blend in with the community.
Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
---|---|---|---|
2014-12-07 | Lê Kim Kiều Anh | 87 | view |
- The Internet has dramati negative, the overall effect of this technology has been positive.What are your opinions on this? 80
- Please comment on the applicant, including asheets or supplementary documents for reference may be attached on behalf of the applicant. 80
- Some people think that using animal for experimentation purpose is necessary for the development of science. Do you agree or disagree? 80
- Please briefly state your academic and extracurricular activities. 93
- As population growth around the regionorestrvation of natural areas or is their destruction an inevitable consequence of population growth Support your view 45
Sentence: Take the case of using mobile mobile phone as a salient example.
Description: The fragment mobile mobile contains a repeated word
Suggestion: Delete a possible duplicate word:
Sentence: In addition, signal is lost, connections can be poor and background noise is a great distraction, which ultimately fragments our conversation.
Description: A noun, plural, common is not usually followed by a determiner, possessive
Suggestion: Refer to fragments and our
Attribute Value Ideal
Score: 7.0 out of 9
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 2 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 16 15
No. of Words: 413 350
No. of Characters: 2192 1500
No. of Different Words: 254 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.508 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.308 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.941 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 164 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 127 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 94 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 64 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 25.812 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 11.007 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.688 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.278 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.495 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.114 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5