Technology provides us with a lot of means to communicate. But now that people have the ability to talk to each other in a wider variety of methods, our communication and social abilities have taken a step back.
Why does technological advance hurt nontechnical communication?
How can we solve this problem?
With the vigorous development of technology, there are hundreds of means to communicate in this day and age. Despite a great number of advantages to human beings, the degradation in social interaction is attributed to the addiction to modern techniques and poor interpersonal communication, which can be addressed by offering them communicative training courses.
First of all, people lack interpersonal communication due to the overuse of ungraded techniques. Needless to say, some people are so inclined to strongly rely on the convenience of the social platforms such as Messengers and Skype that they take the necessity of nontechnical communication for granted. As a result, they suffer from a serious lack of communication skills when making a presentation in public or even talking in person with somebody else. Illustratively, some people have a habit of writing fragments while texting, thus driving them baffled to make a full presentation.
Secondly, the multitudes’ addiction toward social media in communicating are expressed perceptibly. Now that there is so much compelling information on the Internet, people literally become addicted to the Internet and cell phones. Consequently, this addiction leads to different kinds of anxiety disorders, namely self-isolation and crowd phobia. For example, there was a boy who always chatted when he had free time instead of hanging out with friends. After a long time of having seen him talk to himself, the little boy’s parents figured out that he suffered from autism. Only when they moved the boy to a social class did he overcome his issue.
An effective solution which should be followed to tackle the aforementioned problem is to offer young people communicative classes. Once receiving training, students can learn how to effectively use social media so that they can make use of the advantages that technological enhancement brings back. For instance, always does my teacher spend a period organizing a communicative lesson to equip us with essential skills. She teaches us how to write an appreciated email to impress job recruiters, or how to fully and concisely manifest our ideas through a message.
In short, people will probably face a lack of interpersonal communication and even mental blights if they exaggerate the need for social media. In this case, a communication class is needed to guide the students.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2021-09-02 | Naomi_manager | 81 | view |
- Schools are the only place to receive true education Do you agree or disagree 83
- At universities and colleges sports and social activities are just as important as classes and libraries and should receive equal financial support 76
- Technology provides us with a lot of means to communicate But now that people have the ability to talk to each other in a wider variety of methods our communication and social abilities have taken a step back Why does technological advance hurt nontechnic 81
- 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 86
- Businesses should hire employees for their entire lives Do you agree or disagree 76
Comments
Essay evaluations by e-grader
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 121, Rule ID: MUCH_COUNTABLE[1]
Message: Use 'many' with countable nouns.
Suggestion: many
...essed perceptibly. Now that there is so much compelling information on the Internet,...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, consequently, first, if, second, secondly, so, thus, while, for example, for instance, in short, such as, as a result, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 15.1003584229 66% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 9.8082437276 61% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 13.8261648746 65% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 11.0286738351 100% => OK
Pronoun: 26.0 43.0788530466 60% => OK
Preposition: 56.0 52.1666666667 107% => OK
Nominalization: 20.0 8.0752688172 248% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2016.0 1977.66487455 102% => OK
No of words: 376.0 407.700716846 92% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.36170212766 4.8611393121 110% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.40348946061 4.48103885553 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.21969363703 2.67179642975 121% => OK
Unique words: 229.0 212.727598566 108% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.609042553191 0.524837075471 116% => OK
syllable_count: 636.3 618.680645161 103% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.51630824373 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 9.59856630824 31% => OK
Article: 5.0 3.08781362007 162% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 3.51792114695 85% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.86738351254 54% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.94265232975 101% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 20.6003584229 87% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 20.1344086022 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 43.0838974818 48.9658058833 88% => OK
Chars per sentence: 112.0 100.406767564 112% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.8888888889 20.6045352989 101% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.55555555556 5.45110844103 139% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.53405017921 110% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.5376344086 18% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 11.8709677419 59% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 3.85842293907 130% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.88709677419 123% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.22623497811 0.236089414692 96% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0651625541739 0.076458572812 85% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0307242106139 0.0737576698707 42% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.117061561964 0.150856017488 78% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0257619606708 0.0645574589148 40% => 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: 14.3 11.7677419355 122% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 42.72 58.1214874552 74% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 6.10430107527 183% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 10.1575268817 121% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.81 10.9000537634 127% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.25 8.01818996416 115% => OK
difficult_words: 110.0 86.8835125448 127% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 16.5 10.002688172 165% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.0537634409 99% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 10.247311828 137% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 81.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.5 Out of 30
---------------------
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 3, column 121, Rule ID: MUCH_COUNTABLE[1]
Message: Use 'many' with countable nouns.
Suggestion: many
...essed perceptibly. Now that there is so much compelling information on the Internet,...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, consequently, first, if, second, secondly, so, thus, while, for example, for instance, in short, such as, as a result, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 15.1003584229 66% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 9.8082437276 61% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 13.8261648746 65% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 11.0286738351 100% => OK
Pronoun: 26.0 43.0788530466 60% => OK
Preposition: 56.0 52.1666666667 107% => OK
Nominalization: 20.0 8.0752688172 248% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2016.0 1977.66487455 102% => OK
No of words: 376.0 407.700716846 92% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.36170212766 4.8611393121 110% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.40348946061 4.48103885553 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.21969363703 2.67179642975 121% => OK
Unique words: 229.0 212.727598566 108% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.609042553191 0.524837075471 116% => OK
syllable_count: 636.3 618.680645161 103% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.51630824373 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 9.59856630824 31% => OK
Article: 5.0 3.08781362007 162% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 3.51792114695 85% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.86738351254 54% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.94265232975 101% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 20.6003584229 87% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 20.1344086022 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 43.0838974818 48.9658058833 88% => OK
Chars per sentence: 112.0 100.406767564 112% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.8888888889 20.6045352989 101% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.55555555556 5.45110844103 139% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.53405017921 110% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.5376344086 18% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 11.8709677419 59% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 3.85842293907 130% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.88709677419 123% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.22623497811 0.236089414692 96% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0651625541739 0.076458572812 85% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0307242106139 0.0737576698707 42% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.117061561964 0.150856017488 78% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0257619606708 0.0645574589148 40% => 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: 14.3 11.7677419355 122% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 42.72 58.1214874552 74% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 6.10430107527 183% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 10.1575268817 121% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.81 10.9000537634 127% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.25 8.01818996416 115% => OK
difficult_words: 110.0 86.8835125448 127% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 16.5 10.002688172 165% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.0537634409 99% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 10.247311828 137% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 81.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.5 Out of 30
---------------------
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.