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.
It is undeniable that technological breakthroughs have radically changed the way we live and earn a living. While many people believe that the difference between social classes would be expanded by these innovations, I am in favor of the opposite idea and will support my view with reasons and examples in this essay.
On the one hand, innovative advancements are justified to gain the gap between the rich and the poor due to several reasons. Firstly, there has been a consensus that leading-edge technologies require an exorbitant budget to adopt and operate. Therefore, only by the upper class will these advances in technology be afforded and, as a result, harnessed, as we see in the US, where citizens’ willingness to pay for a smartphone is much higher than that of Nigerian residents. Secondly, a great deal of state-of-the-art innovations is also putting the middle class to the verge of poverty. Specifically, advancements in robotics technology and automation are predicted to supersede blue-collar workers, who are mostly poor people, making them prone to jobless and shoulder an onerous budget responsibility.
On the other hand, I concur with the view that the influences exerted by new technology on social inequality are not significant, since it offers equal accessibility for the whole population. Indeed, from an economic perspective, online shopping, supermarket checkouts utilizing smart cards or wireless hotspots have become ubiquitous, the advantages of which can be reaped by both the rich and the poor. As a result, all citizens are able to make the most of their time increasingly productive. From an education perspective, it is evident that technological breakthroughs have facilitated the transmission of knowledge by providing distance learning or online homeschooling. Hence, if impoverished residents are gained access to the aforementioned services, they will approach cutting-edged knowledge, which assures equal acquisitions to that of the upper class without paying an expensive tuition fee for face-to-face education.
In brief, it seems to me it is impossible to attribute any exacerbation in social equality to innovative advancements because of the advantages they bring about.
| 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 |
- The pie charts below show the average household expenditures in Japan and Malaysia in the year 2010.Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant. 67
- Some people believe that sports should be a compulsory at school, while others believe that it should optional. Discuss both sides. 89
- The graph shows the information about the international conferences in three capital cities in 1980 – 2010.Summarise the main character and make comparison where relevant. 61
- The graph below shows different sources of air pollutants in the UK from 1990 to 2005. Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant. 89
- as well as making money, businesses also have social responsibilities. Do you agree or disagree? 84
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 163, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...use of the advantages they bring about.
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, hence, if, second, secondly, so, therefore, while, in brief, as a result, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 13.1623246493 114% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 7.85571142285 64% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 10.4138276553 106% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 7.30460921844 151% => OK
Pronoun: 26.0 24.0651302605 108% => OK
Preposition: 49.0 41.998997996 117% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 8.3376753507 96% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1893.0 1615.20841683 117% => OK
No of words: 342.0 315.596192385 108% => OK
Chars per words: 5.5350877193 5.12529762239 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.30037696126 4.20363070211 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.37582058644 2.80592935109 120% => OK
Unique words: 212.0 176.041082164 120% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.619883040936 0.561755894193 110% => OK
syllable_count: 608.4 506.74238477 120% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.60771543086 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 5.43587174349 110% => OK
Article: 2.0 2.52805611222 79% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.10420841683 285% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.76152304609 126% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 16.0721442886 81% => 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: 52.5954753156 49.4020404114 106% => OK
Chars per sentence: 145.615384615 106.682146367 136% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.3076923077 20.7667163134 127% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.07692307692 7.06120827912 129% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.67935871743 104% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 3.9879759519 25% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.182752038829 0.244688304435 75% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0573694025719 0.084324248473 68% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0412530431829 0.0667982634062 62% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0886796772461 0.151304729494 59% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0521102520454 0.056905535591 92% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.8 13.0946893788 136% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 28.17 50.2224549098 56% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 13.0 7.44779559118 175% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.8 11.3001002004 140% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.15 12.4159519038 122% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.91 8.58950901804 115% => OK
difficult_words: 108.0 78.4519038076 138% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 9.78957915832 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 10.1190380762 123% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 10.7795591182 121% => 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.