Internet technology means people do not need to travel to foreign countries to understand how others live. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
It is true that in this day and age the advancement of technology enables people to approach various cultures and lifestyles at the click of a button. Although this is true, grasping the cultures and customs of another country via a computer screen is vastly different from actually experiencing them first-hand.
On the one hand, the prevalence of the internet has driven the possibility of observing the lives of people around the world without paying a real visit. Being visualised on various virtual platforms in form of images and videos coupled with precise descriptions, traditional and cultural activities of different regions are viable for everyone to discover, as long as a wireless connection is equipped. For example, Netflix has run a street food series from which audiences can learn about the cooking process and reviews from numerous famous critics. Besides, this exploration method facilitates people to experience ways of living in multiple countries at a more affordable cost. For example, instead of spending approximately 60 million dongs for a tour to a European nation, Vietnamese can go sightseeing online from their home sweet home to the whole Europe region at the cost of a monthly internet fee.
On the other hand, I agree with those who take the view that distant observance cannot exert the same experience gained from travelling. Currently, a significant number of online contents are unverifiable and usually exaggerated by the author for attention. Taking India as an example, it is notorious as a poor and unhygienic country with a high rate of crime, whereas, in reality, it has diversified people and poverty and prosperity coexist there. Consequently, without an excursion to authentic India, internet users are highly likely to form a misleading perspective of the country. Moreover, visiting a nation in person helps visitors soak up the lively and convivial atmosphere as well as immerse in its traditions, which can never be provided by videos or images no matter how high quality they are. For example, reading or watching a celebration or a local delicacy cannot exert the same feeling as participating in that event or eating the festival staples.
In conclusion, while the proliferation of technology makes it possible for people to see lives in different places, there are features that can only be obtained through a real visit.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-09-25 | phamquoctrung2007 | 89 | view |
| 2023-09-21 | Phuong1810 | 78 | view |
| 2023-09-21 | Phuong1810 | 78 | view |
| 2023-09-21 | Phuong1810 | 78 | view |
| 2023-09-21 | Phuong1810 | 78 | view |
- People living in large cities today face many problems in their everyday life What are these problems Should governments encourage people to move to smaller regional towns 89
- Organized tour to remote areas and community is increasingly popular Is it a positive or negative development for the local people and the environment 89
- Maintaining public libraries is a waste of money since computer technology can replace their functions Do you agree or disagree 89
- Some people think the government funding should not be used for supporting art and culture while others think supporting cultural activities may be beneficial for the population and the culture Discuss both these views and give your own opinion 89
- In the modern world it is possible to shop work and communicate with people via the internet and live without any face to face contact with others Is this a positive or negative development 89
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, besides, but, consequently, first, if, moreover, so, then, well, whereas, while, for example, in conclusion, as well as, it is true, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 13.1623246493 99% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 7.85571142285 76% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 10.4138276553 144% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 7.30460921844 96% => OK
Pronoun: 17.0 24.0651302605 71% => OK
Preposition: 54.0 41.998997996 129% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 8.3376753507 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2004.0 1615.20841683 124% => OK
No of words: 384.0 315.596192385 122% => OK
Chars per words: 5.21875 5.12529762239 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.4267276788 4.20363070211 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.93206038164 2.80592935109 104% => OK
Unique words: 230.0 176.041082164 131% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.598958333333 0.561755894193 107% => OK
syllable_count: 636.3 506.74238477 126% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 5.43587174349 92% => OK
Article: 2.0 2.52805611222 79% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.10420841683 143% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.76152304609 126% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 16.0721442886 87% => OK
Sentence length: 27.0 20.2975951904 133% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 38.0276483735 49.4020404114 77% => OK
Chars per sentence: 143.142857143 106.682146367 134% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.4285714286 20.7667163134 132% => OK
Discourse Markers: 11.4285714286 7.06120827912 162% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.67935871743 104% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 3.9879759519 75% => 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: 0.113905474117 0.244688304435 47% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0395915751089 0.084324248473 47% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0330260098216 0.0667982634062 49% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0700546431669 0.151304729494 46% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.00915557480999 0.056905535591 16% => 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: 16.9 13.0946893788 129% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 35.61 50.2224549098 71% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.0 11.3001002004 133% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.29 12.4159519038 107% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.99 8.58950901804 116% => OK
difficult_words: 122.0 78.4519038076 156% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 9.78957915832 148% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.8 10.1190380762 126% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 10.7795591182 139% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 89.8876404494 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 8.0 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.