: The maintenance of public libraries is a waste of money because of computer technologies that have the same function. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Public libraries have been the treasure-house of knowledge. Opponents of this view claim that due to advancement in technology these need not be preserved. I, however, disagree to the statement because libraries are perfect place to study and grab knowledge.
To start with, the first and foremost reason is a conducive atmosphere. To gain knowledge or study purpose, one requires discipline, motivation and quiet ambiance so that one can concentrate. Moreover, looking at people studying over there, a person feels like doing the same which is not possible if he goes with technology. Rustling and sweet smell of paper can never be replaced by anything else but books. A recent study by renowned magazine revealed that a person sitting in library can study for longer hours as compared to the person with computer at home or in office. Also, working with technology for hours and hours is unhealthy and can have adverse impact on our eyesight, whereas no such harm is detected of studying in libraries. Therefore, it is easy to understand that preserving libraries is not wasting but investing money.
What is more, visiting library gives us opportunity to come in contact with other people or even competitors. As such, the person feels inspired and motivated. Going to library is a great outing which is the need of the hour to stay relaxed, rejuvenated and tension free. Working on technology, however, can lead to stress, strain, and depression. More so, libraries are the cheapest and the best options for those who do not either have access to internet or cannot use computers. For instance, a survey by The Ministry of Science and Technology concluded that just 30 percent people are using technology for study, to do research and collect information in India. Also, libraries can be established in far-flung areas where internet is nearly impossible or quite expensive. Hence, it must not be wrong to say that libraries are and will remain viable alternate to modern technology.
In conclusion, I would like to assert that protection of the libraries which are the vast pool of information is mandatory so that the poor, unprivileged and people residing in remote areas also have access to these matchless property of knowledge.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-02-11 | Rajesh Poonia | 84 | view |
- 1 Topic some people believe that internet will not change the trend of newspaper of getting news Agree or disagree 64
- When a country develops its technology ,the traditional skills and ways of life die out. It is pointless to keep them alive. Do you agree or disagree with this opinion. 89
- The maintenance of public libraries is a waste of money because of computer technologies that have the same function. To what extent do you agree or disagree? 84
- Prevention is better than cure. Out of country’s health budget, a large proportion should be diverted from treatment to spending on health education and preventative measures. To what extent do you agree or disagree to the statement. 89
- Topic 2:Some people believe that government should pay for and offer housing to people who lost their homes or can not afford them. Agree or disagree. 89
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 8, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...these matchless property of knowledge.
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, hence, however, if, look, moreover, so, therefore, whereas, for instance, in conclusion, to start with, what is more
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 13.1623246493 160% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 7.85571142285 153% => OK
Conjunction : 21.0 10.4138276553 202% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 13.0 7.30460921844 178% => OK
Pronoun: 18.0 24.0651302605 75% => OK
Preposition: 50.0 41.998997996 119% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 8.3376753507 108% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1883.0 1615.20841683 117% => OK
No of words: 369.0 315.596192385 117% => OK
Chars per words: 5.10298102981 5.12529762239 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.38284983912 4.20363070211 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.82065786309 2.80592935109 101% => OK
Unique words: 210.0 176.041082164 119% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.569105691057 0.561755894193 101% => OK
syllable_count: 594.9 506.74238477 117% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.60771543086 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 5.43587174349 55% => OK
Article: 5.0 2.52805611222 198% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.10420841683 48% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 0.809619238477 124% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.76152304609 84% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 16.0721442886 118% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 20.2975951904 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 46.5721969536 49.4020404114 94% => OK
Chars per sentence: 99.1052631579 106.682146367 93% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.4210526316 20.7667163134 94% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.05263157895 7.06120827912 100% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.67935871743 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 3.9879759519 75% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 3.4128256513 176% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.195646317648 0.244688304435 80% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0559192426927 0.084324248473 66% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0494181158304 0.0667982634062 74% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.115262443922 0.151304729494 76% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0465388341244 0.056905535591 82% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.3 13.0946893788 94% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 50.2224549098 104% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 11.3001002004 95% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.3 12.4159519038 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.69 8.58950901804 101% => OK
difficult_words: 96.0 78.4519038076 122% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.0 9.78957915832 72% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.1190380762 95% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.7795591182 83% => 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.