It is inevitable that as technology develops so traditional cultures must be lost. Technology and tradition are incompatible you cannot have both together.
To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?
Nowadays some people are anxious about development of technologies and they believe that this happen caused losing the traditional cultures. However, I personally oppose this view and I think technology could be beneficial to the survival of tradition.
In my opinion, technology can help to keep traditional places and activities. For instance, combination of new technologies and cultural methods in agriculture might be made better life for rural. In fact, machines are not replace manual works but also they can help people to do their activities easier. Another beneficial of technologies for rural is who do not need to immigrate to cities because of hard grub. Another example is changing the style of ceremonies by growth of technology. Fire play festivals, for example, in the past. people observed it very simple, while these days people execute this festival by new technology more attractive than before and also, it is completely safe.
In addition, some factors in development of technologies are incompatible to traditional culture such as improve communications. Some people argue that by improving these communication, people are to go out of sight with each other whereas it could try to connect people when they are far. A second factors would be traditional culture avoided technological advances because some elder people in society not compatible to the new technology. On the other hand, we see Japan that is traditional country with high average age but it is progressive country in high technology.
In conclusion, I believe that science and traditions could be compatible. However, in each part the value of one of them get less than the other one.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 224, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'replaced'.
Suggestion: replaced
...fe for rural. In fact, machines are not replace manual works but also they can help peo...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 539, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: People
...ay festivals, for example, in the past. people observed it very simple, while these da...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 166, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'this communication' or 'these communications'?
Suggestion: this communication; these communications
...ns. Some people argue that by improving these communication, people are to go out of sight with eac...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, however, if, second, so, whereas, while, for example, for instance, i think, in addition, in conclusion, in fact, such as, in my opinion, 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: 8.0 7.85571142285 102% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 10.4138276553 77% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 7.30460921844 82% => OK
Pronoun: 23.0 24.0651302605 96% => OK
Preposition: 39.0 41.998997996 93% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 8.3376753507 96% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1415.0 1615.20841683 88% => OK
No of words: 269.0 315.596192385 85% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.26022304833 5.12529762239 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.0498419064 4.20363070211 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.02375626451 2.80592935109 108% => OK
Unique words: 155.0 176.041082164 88% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.576208178439 0.561755894193 103% => OK
syllable_count: 463.5 506.74238477 91% => 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: 1.0 2.10420841683 48% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.76152304609 147% => 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: 33.6370166467 49.4020404114 68% => OK
Chars per sentence: 94.3333333333 106.682146367 88% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.9333333333 20.7667163134 86% => OK
Discourse Markers: 11.0666666667 7.06120827912 157% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.01903807615 60% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 8.67935871743 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 3.9879759519 50% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 3.4128256513 29% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.230874374401 0.244688304435 94% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0823893929224 0.084324248473 98% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0661379149928 0.0667982634062 99% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.140289551951 0.151304729494 93% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0488323519595 0.056905535591 86% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.3 13.0946893788 94% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 45.76 50.2224549098 91% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.44779559118 150% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 11.3001002004 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.93 12.4159519038 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.35 8.58950901804 97% => OK
difficult_words: 66.0 78.4519038076 84% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 9.78957915832 112% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.1190380762 87% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 10.7795591182 102% => 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.