The technology development has affected social relationships from person to person. Do the positive aspects of this trend outweigh the negative aspects?
In recent years, the question whether social networking sites have positive influences on human communication has been receiving a great deal of public attention. Although the technology advancement is not without disadvantages, the upsides will justify these.
On the one hand, some reasons can be cited to explain the drawbacks of social media. First, since people are using social media giants as a means of communication more frequently, their social skills may face up with the risks of being deteriorated owing to the lack of real interaction. In fact, there are numerous individuals, especially teenagers, often use informal language with several emotions and abbreviations when communicating on social networking, which in turn degrades their ability to write and speak formally. Second, by providing not only low-cost and efficient communicating systems but also multi-purpose platforms to connect users with common interests, networking companies make users addicted to social media. In fact, according to Common Sense of Media census (2015), people spent averagely more than one-third of a day on social networks such as Facebook and Twitter, which results in less quality time for family and other relationships.
Under no circumstances should the benefits be marginalized. First, since the proliferation of technology makes social media flourish, people find it is easier to keep in touch with others. For instance, social media giants, such as Facebook, Instagram, allow users to connect and have a conservation with each other, which will promote social behavior and strengthen social relationships. Second, with the view to motivating the global economy, social networking sites allow international enterprises to hold online meetings and conferences regardless of geographical distance. This means that thanks to the invention of online-based communication tools, such as Viber, Skype, the limits of old-fashioned means of communication such as letters or telegrams are eased, thus people working in multinational corporations can work and collaborate with their colleagues as productive as direct contact.
In conclusion, although the state of art technology has some negative impacts on human communication, the positive aspects of it should be recognized. By balancing the time used for technology, the cutting- edge technology can do wonders for social relationships.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-07-30 | Anastasia Chinemerem Izundu | 61 | view |
- Prison is the common way in most countries to solve the problem of crime However a more effective solution is to provide people a better education DO you agree or disagree 84
- Some people think that instead of preventing climate change we need to find a way to live with it To what extent do you agree or disagree 78
- Extreme sports such as sky diving and skiing are very dangerous and should be banned To what extent do you agree or disagree with this view 95
- Whether or not someone achieves their aims is mostly by a question of luck To what extent do you agree or disagree 56
- Many museums and historical sites are mainly visited by tourists but not by local people Why is this the case and what can be done to attract more local people to visit these places 89
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 18, Rule ID: WHETHER[5]
Message: Can you shorten this phrase to just 'whether', or rephrase the sentence to avoid "the question"?
Suggestion: whether
In recent years, the question whether social networking sites have positive i...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 961, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ime for family and other relationships. Under no circumstances should the benefi...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, if, may, second, so, then, third, thus, for instance, in conclusion, in fact, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 13.1623246493 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 7.85571142285 102% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 10.4138276553 106% => OK
Relative clauses : 5.0 7.30460921844 68% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 8.0 24.0651302605 33% => OK
Preposition: 52.0 41.998997996 124% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 8.3376753507 168% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2036.0 1615.20841683 126% => OK
No of words: 356.0 315.596192385 113% => OK
Chars per words: 5.7191011236 5.12529762239 112% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.34372677135 4.20363070211 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.20867677015 2.80592935109 114% => OK
Unique words: 211.0 176.041082164 120% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.592696629213 0.561755894193 106% => OK
syllable_count: 628.2 506.74238477 124% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.60771543086 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 5.43587174349 37% => OK
Article: 5.0 2.52805611222 198% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.10420841683 190% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 12.0 4.76152304609 252% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 16.0721442886 87% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 20.2975951904 123% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 67.6645386884 49.4020404114 137% => OK
Chars per sentence: 145.428571429 106.682146367 136% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.4285714286 20.7667163134 122% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.35714285714 7.06120827912 104% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.01903807615 40% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.67935871743 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 3.9879759519 125% => OK
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: 0.128697702254 0.244688304435 53% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0488323221474 0.084324248473 58% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0414092503099 0.0667982634062 62% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0961512687234 0.151304729494 64% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0558916536747 0.056905535591 98% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 18.2 13.0946893788 139% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 29.18 50.2224549098 58% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 11.2 7.44779559118 150% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.4 11.3001002004 136% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.19 12.4159519038 130% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.98 8.58950901804 116% => OK
difficult_words: 115.0 78.4519038076 147% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 9.78957915832 123% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 10.1190380762 119% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 10.7795591182 111% => 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.