Some people think that 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 opinions.
Numerous people these days support the idea that the expansion in technology accessible is synonymous with the gap between the wealthy and the pauper will be much more significantly, whilst there is still several other, including me, believing that its impacts are totally contradictory. Both of these pre-mentioned statements will be addressed in this essay
On the one hand, it does not seem unreasonable to suggest that the difference in living standard between rich and poor people are much deepened due to the raising in the availability of technology. One explanation which is worth considering is the affordability. Despite the advance in medical appliances can put an end to several hazardous diseases, they are allegedly exclusive to the wealthy as the financial condition does not allow poor people to use these therapeutic machines. Another illustration is the state-of-the-art smartphones. It can be said that the majority of technology companies does not target poor people as their potential consumers. Hence, the price of these appliances are often out of the tight budget of a pauper
Nevertheless, there is the possibility that the increase in the range of technology available may decrease the gap between two social classes. Mobile phones can be a perfect case in point. A multitasking cellular phone, which once regarded as a luxury commodity, can now be purchased by the manual workers without any monetary difficulty. Furthermore, since the Internet is being socialized, there are more wifi hotspots that completely free of charge sprang up at gathering places such as public transport stations or cafeterias. This enables every segment of society to access to gain useful information and knowledge in a more straightforward way
In conclusion, the increase in the range of technology available may deepen the gap between the rich and the poor due to its affordability. Nevertheless, it can also diminish this gap as it enables paupers to access to the appliance through low-price segment products
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-06-23 | maidiem.1508 | 73 | view |
| 2022-09-21 | vishal sachdeva | 89 | view |
| 2021-12-08 | Kien Vu | 89 | view |
| 2020-09-10 | longpm2k | 78 | view |
| 2020-09-10 | longpm2k | 78 | view |
- Many people believe that social networking sites such as Facebook have a huge negative impact on both individuals and society To what extent do you agree or disagree 73
- Watching a live performance such as a play concert or sporting event is more enjoyable than watching the same event on television To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement 92
- In some countries only few young people go to classical music concerts or or play classical music Why Should young people be encouraged to attend and learn more 89
- There is no future for public transport, because travelling by car is so much more convenient.Write your composition. 78
- Nowadays, many people choose ready-made food and refuse to cook at home. why do you think it happens?what are the advantages and disadvantages of such a choice 84
Comments
Essay evaluations by e-grader
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 650, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... knowledge in a more straightforward way In conclusion, the increase in the range...
^^^^^^
Line 8, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...nce through low-price segment products
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, furthermore, hence, if, may, nevertheless, so, still, in conclusion, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 13.1623246493 137% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 7.85571142285 115% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 10.4138276553 48% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 8.0 7.30460921844 110% => OK
Pronoun: 22.0 24.0651302605 91% => OK
Preposition: 45.0 41.998997996 107% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 8.3376753507 108% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1713.0 1615.20841683 106% => OK
No of words: 320.0 315.596192385 101% => OK
Chars per words: 5.353125 5.12529762239 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.22948505376 4.20363070211 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.16306658709 2.80592935109 113% => OK
Unique words: 180.0 176.041082164 102% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.5625 0.561755894193 100% => OK
syllable_count: 545.4 506.74238477 108% => 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: 3.0 2.52805611222 119% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.10420841683 48% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.76152304609 84% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 16.0721442886 75% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 26.0 20.2975951904 128% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 83.5922643949 49.4020404114 169% => OK
Chars per sentence: 142.75 106.682146367 134% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.6666666667 20.7667163134 128% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.83333333333 7.06120827912 97% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.01903807615 40% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.67935871743 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 0.0 3.9879759519 0% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.219236683939 0.244688304435 90% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0694155173603 0.084324248473 82% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0684587214092 0.0667982634062 102% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.134630065502 0.151304729494 89% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0461347799302 0.056905535591 81% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.1 13.0946893788 131% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 36.63 50.2224549098 73% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.44779559118 150% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.6 11.3001002004 129% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.05 12.4159519038 113% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.66 8.58950901804 112% => OK
difficult_words: 96.0 78.4519038076 122% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 21.0 9.78957915832 215% => Linsear_write_formula is high.
gunning_fog: 12.4 10.1190380762 123% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 10.7795591182 139% => 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.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 650, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... knowledge in a more straightforward way In conclusion, the increase in the range...
^^^^^^
Line 8, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...nce through low-price segment products
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, furthermore, hence, if, may, nevertheless, so, still, in conclusion, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 13.1623246493 137% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 7.85571142285 115% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 10.4138276553 48% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 8.0 7.30460921844 110% => OK
Pronoun: 22.0 24.0651302605 91% => OK
Preposition: 45.0 41.998997996 107% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 8.3376753507 108% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1713.0 1615.20841683 106% => OK
No of words: 320.0 315.596192385 101% => OK
Chars per words: 5.353125 5.12529762239 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.22948505376 4.20363070211 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.16306658709 2.80592935109 113% => OK
Unique words: 180.0 176.041082164 102% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.5625 0.561755894193 100% => OK
syllable_count: 545.4 506.74238477 108% => 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: 3.0 2.52805611222 119% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.10420841683 48% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.76152304609 84% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 16.0721442886 75% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 26.0 20.2975951904 128% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 83.5922643949 49.4020404114 169% => OK
Chars per sentence: 142.75 106.682146367 134% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.6666666667 20.7667163134 128% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.83333333333 7.06120827912 97% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.01903807615 40% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.67935871743 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 0.0 3.9879759519 0% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.219236683939 0.244688304435 90% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0694155173603 0.084324248473 82% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0684587214092 0.0667982634062 102% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.134630065502 0.151304729494 89% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0461347799302 0.056905535591 81% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.1 13.0946893788 131% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 36.63 50.2224549098 73% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.44779559118 150% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.6 11.3001002004 129% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.05 12.4159519038 113% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.66 8.58950901804 112% => OK
difficult_words: 96.0 78.4519038076 122% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 21.0 9.78957915832 215% => Linsear_write_formula is high.
gunning_fog: 12.4 10.1190380762 123% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 10.7795591182 139% => 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.