issue
The speaker claims that countries with latest technologies and processes are world leaders and thus courses like humanities and liberal arts should be demoted. However, the countries richness is not just the measure of its economic wealth but also its cultural dominance. I strongly agree with the speakers standpoint. My proclivity towards the same has been explained in the ensuing paragraphs.
The primary reason why I see eye to eye with the speaker is that automisaton is taking over in almost every field known to mankind. Its not just the industries concerning with science and technology but also cultural fields like music, art, etc. Automated tech ensures higher production rate with minimal error occcurance. This elucidates mass production of any article with precision and thus leading to path of richness.
Secondly, I would like to point out that with the pace the world is growing right now, it is getting too challanging for traditional human methods to cope up with it. Advanced artificial intlligence surpass traditional human methods almost every time. Countries which have accepted the dominance of computers over human capabilities have achieved many more milestones than the countries who haven't. This makes us question to ourselves that is the mental developments like humanitries and liberal arts still worthy enough to invest time in?
On the contrary, many people have made it clear that richness is not just defined by the countries wealth but also its cultural richness, peace of mind and mental improvement of its residents. This makes discouragement of these important culture enhancing fields a rather naive move. There has to be some sort of balance maintained for the same these university courses as well.
In a nutshell, I would like to say that no matter what advancement of technology is the key source to countries richness. However, total negligence of the university courses like humanities and liberal arts is not advisable of any country. There should perfect balance between both.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-10-07 | ekarumeblessing@icloud.com | 83 | view |
| 2024-07-26 | maddo4568 | view | |
| 2024-05-09 | batterylow_123 | 30 | view |
| 2023-10-15 | Omar Ibna Nazim | 16 | view |
| 2023-10-09 | dsaaaa | 83 | view |
- movies 70
- issue 16
- The following is taken from a memo from the advertising director of the Super Screen Movie Production Company. "According to a recent report from our marketing department, during the past year, fewer people attended Super Screen-produced movies than in an 41
- argument 16
- argument 16
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 35, Rule ID: THE_SUPERLATIVE[2]
Message: A determiner is probably missing here: 'with the latest'.
Suggestion: with the latest
The speaker claims that countries with latest technologies and processes are world le...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 174, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'countries'' or 'country's'?
Suggestion: countries'; country's
...al arts should be demoted. However, the countries richness is not just the measure of its...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 299, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'speakers'' or 'speaker's'?
Suggestion: speakers'; speaker's
...al dominance. I strongly agree with the speakers standpoint. My proclivity towards the s...
^^^^^^^^
Line 6, column 392, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: haven't
... more milestones than the countries who havent. This makes us question to ourselves th...
^^^^^^
Line 8, column 90, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'countries'' or 'country's'?
Suggestion: countries'; country's
...hat richness is not just defined by the countries wealth but also its cultural richness, ...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, however, if, second, secondly, so, still, thus, well, as to, sort of, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 19.5258426966 67% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 12.4196629213 32% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 14.8657303371 74% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 11.3162921348 71% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 26.0 33.0505617978 79% => OK
Preposition: 47.0 58.6224719101 80% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 12.9106741573 108% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1715.0 2235.4752809 77% => OK
No of words: 324.0 442.535393258 73% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.29320987654 5.05705443957 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.24264068712 4.55969084622 93% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.76926507682 2.79657885939 99% => OK
Unique words: 185.0 215.323595506 86% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.570987654321 0.4932671777 116% => OK
syllable_count: 531.0 704.065955056 75% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 6.24550561798 144% => OK
Article: 3.0 4.99550561798 60% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 3.10617977528 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.38483146067 46% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 20.2370786517 89% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 23.0359550562 78% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 39.1106770809 60.3974514979 65% => OK
Chars per sentence: 95.2777777778 118.986275619 80% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.0 23.4991977007 77% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.33333333333 5.21951772744 102% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 7.80617977528 64% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 14.0 10.2758426966 136% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 5.13820224719 39% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.83258426966 41% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0 0.243740707755 0% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0 0.0831039109588 0% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0758088955206 0% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0 0.150359130593 0% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0667264976115 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: 12.5 14.1392134831 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 48.8420337079 109% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.1743820225 85% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.11 12.1639044944 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.53 8.38706741573 102% => OK
difficult_words: 82.0 100.480337079 82% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 11.8971910112 71% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.2143820225 82% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 16.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 Out of 6
---------------------
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.