The range of technology available to people is increasing the gap between the rich and the poor. Others think it has an opposite effect. Discuss both views and give your opinions.
<p style="white-space: normal;">There is an undeniable fact that over a quarter of our population are behind the great technological wave. A group of people have blamed technology to be the core factor that led to the ever-widening social class distinctions while the others, on the contrary, believe that the achievements developed based on technology could bring humans together. There are both pros and cons of these viewpoints that I will discuss in this essay.</p><p style="white-space: normal;">As the individuals who are not able to adapt the changes will be left behind on the path of evolution, the lower-income earners will be the first targets to be lagged behind in the world dominated by the technological wave. On the economic front, the maximum-income figure estimated about one dollar per day is the biggest obstacle that restricts the poor to join the technological world since it takes them years to save enough money to buy a computer or a smartphone for their own. Besides, those who inhabit in remote areas or in less-developed countries are hardly have the opportunity to approach to technological innovations, or even worse, they virtually have no concept of the internet. Furthermore, humans are using technological devices, specifically smartphone, as a measure of our true values. For example, those who possess low-cost smartphones could feel less attractive than the others, or even could self-underestimate their core values just because they have yet afforded a famous brand-name phone. These realities are obviously the constraints of the technological applications available to us.</p><div class="google-auto-placed ap_container" style="font-size: medium; white-space: normal; text-align: center; width: 986px; height: auto; clear: none;"><ins data-ad-format="auto" class="adsbygoogle adsbygoogle-noablate" data-ad-client="ca-pub-0840098069707635" data-adsbygoogle-status="done" style="display: block; margin: auto; background-color: transparent;"><ins id="aswift_3_expand" style="display: inline-table; border: none; height: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative; visibility: visible; width: 986px; background-color: transparent;"><ins id="aswift_3_anchor" style="display: block; border: none; height: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative; visibility: visible; width: 986px; background-color: transparent; overflow: hidden; opacity: 0;"><iframe width="986" height="200" frameborder="0" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" vspace="0" hspace="0" allowtransparency="true" scrolling="no" allowfullscreen="true" id="aswift_3" name="aswift_3" __idm_frm__="603" style="left: 0px; position: absolute; top: 0px; border-width: 0px; border-style: initial; width: 986px; height: 200px;"></iframe></ins></ins></ins></div><p style="white-space: normal;">Conversely, technology has a great potential power to connect the world. It was a long path from Morse code to the internet for humans to speak the same language: the binary language. Driven by the power of the internet built on binary-based, we are brought together than ever before. For instance, people could easily capture the situation of an earthquake that occurred halfway around the earth only by surfing the internet. Furthermore, the sponsors could easily donate to these victims through internet banking account just by a click, even if they are cooking at home. Another power of technology is to raise the empathy among people. For example, driven by the power of media, a person could raise fund for a group of inhabitants who lived in the most remote area on earth by his presence on televised broadcast.</p><p style="white-space: normal;">In conclusion, there are numerous reasons to share the concern that the gap among social classes would be widened by the rise of technological devices. I do, however, believe in a bright prospect that the more the technology could develop, the more human could empathize with each other.</p>
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-12-25 | fhu | 89 | view |
| 2019-11-25 | Harpreet Singh Kooner | 56 | view |
| 2019-08-04 | smiles | 84 | view |
| 2019-05-11 | Muhammed_10 | 67 | view |
| 2019-01-26 | Inpu Nguyen | 73 | view |
- Maintaining public libraries is a waste of money since computer technology can replace their functions. To what extend do you agree or disagree? 73
- The money spent by governments on space programmes would be better spent on vital public services such as schools and hospitals To what extent do you agree or disagree 80
- To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement?“Because the world is changing so quickly, people now are less happy or less satisfied with their lives than people were in the past”. 73
- “Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?“When teachers assign projects on which students must work together, the students learn much more effectively than when they are asked to work alone on projects.” 73
- Some people believe that we cannot learn anything from the past for our life today, while others believe that history is a valuable source of information to understand human's life. Discuss both views and give your opinion. 73
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 1091, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'had'.
Suggestion: had
... in less-developed countries are hardly have the opportunity to approach to technolo...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
besides, conversely, first, furthermore, however, if, so, while, for example, for instance, in conclusion, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 13.1623246493 137% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 7.85571142285 153% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 10.4138276553 58% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 12.0 7.30460921844 164% => OK
Pronoun: 29.0 24.0651302605 121% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 66.0 41.998997996 157% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 8.3376753507 96% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3699.0 1615.20841683 229% => Less number of characters wanted.
No of words: 534.0 315.596192385 169% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 6.92696629213 5.12529762239 135% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.80712388197 4.20363070211 114% => OK
Word Length SD: 6.32280097306 2.80592935109 225% => Word_Length_SD is high.
Unique words: 303.0 176.041082164 172% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.567415730337 0.561755894193 101% => OK
syllable_count: 1061.1 506.74238477 209% => syllable counts are too long.
avg_syllables_per_word: 2.0 1.60771543086 124% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 5.43587174349 129% => OK
Article: 6.0 2.52805611222 237% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 2.0 2.10420841683 95% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 0.809619238477 247% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 2.0 4.76152304609 42% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 16.0721442886 93% => OK
Sentence length: 35.0 20.2975951904 172% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 366.173401546 49.4020404114 741% => The lengths of sentences changed so frequently.
Chars per sentence: 246.6 106.682146367 231% => Less chars_per_sentence wanted.
Words per sentence: 35.6 20.7667163134 171% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.13333333333 7.06120827912 115% => OK
Paragraphs: 1.0 4.38176352705 23% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.67935871743 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 3.9879759519 100% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 3.4128256513 88% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0416118152672 0.244688304435 17% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0313906716842 0.084324248473 37% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0237894411489 0.0667982634062 36% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0416118152672 0.151304729494 28% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.056905535591 0% => 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: 29.0 13.0946893788 221% => Automated_readability_index is high.
flesch_reading_ease: 2.11 50.2224549098 4% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 15.9 7.44779559118 213% => Smog_index is high.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 21.7 11.3001002004 192% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 23.51 12.4159519038 189% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.43 8.58950901804 121% => OK
difficult_words: 171.0 78.4519038076 218% => Less difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 22.0 9.78957915832 225% => Linsear_write_formula is high.
gunning_fog: 16.0 10.1190380762 158% => OK
text_standard: 22.0 10.7795591182 204% => The average readability is very high. Good job!
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Minimum four paragraphs wanted.
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 11.2359550562 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.