The maintenance of public libraries is a waste of money because of computer technologies that have the same function. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Some people believe that advancement in technology has restricted the use of public libraries and spending money for their protection would be utterly futile. I, however, disagree with the statement to a great extent because these occupy a significant and massive role for students, researchers, and knowledge-seekers at present as well.
On the one hand, libraries are indispensable and unavoidable for people. The first obvious reason is the quiet and conducive atmosphere of libraries. Everyone requires a fool-fledged ambiance to study or to gain knowledge. One feels motivated plus inspired by looking at the people sitting in rows and studying different books, magazines, and periodicals which cannot be replaced by technology. Also, visiting these libraries gives opportunities to come in contact with competitors where they can exchange ideas. The second important reason is that these are the cheapest and the best option for those who do not have easy access to the internet or cannot use computers. For instance, a survey by The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting concluded that around 30% population in India is using smartphones or computer technology. No preservation of libraries means no accurate information to the greater proportion of population across the world.
On the other hand, computer technology is becoming increasingly popular especially among young ones. It is the fastest and easiest way to obtain information. Almost every type of knowledge is just a click away for computer users. They can grab the information they want by sitting at homes or in offices. Libraries seem to be a useless and outdated way to them. Also, using computer technology is paperless and eco-friendly process can lend an immense help to protect our earth from global warming. Despite numerous benefits of computer technology, it is not judicious decision to stop maintaining libraries. Using too much technology is unhealthy and harmful to human being. No human contact can lead to stress, strain and even a deadly disease called depression. More so, libraries can be established in remote areas where internet connection is not possible or quite expensive. Hence, computer technology is not a viable alternative to public libraries.
In conclusion, I would like to assert that I am not against promoting computer technology, but spending money to preserve libraries is not wasting but investing money for larger benefits of the masses.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-02-12 | Rajesh Poonia | 84 | view |
- The internet has transformed the way information is shared and are the most serious problems associated with the internet consumed but it has also created problems that did not exist before. What are the reasons and what are the solutions. 89
- The maintenance of public libraries is a waste of money because of computer technologies that have the same function To what extent do you agree or disagree 84
- The maintenance of public libraries is a waste of money because of computer technologies that have the same function. To what extent do you agree or disagree? 84
- Prevention is better than cure. Out of country’s health budget, a large proportion should be diverted from treatment to spending on health education and preventative measures. To what extent do you agree or disagree to the statement. 89
- Many offenders commit more crimes after serving the first punishment. Why is this happening ? what are the solutions ? 89
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...y for larger benefits of the masses.
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, hence, however, if, look, second, so, well, for instance, in conclusion, on the other hand, to a great extent
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 13.1623246493 144% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 7.85571142285 115% => OK
Conjunction : 21.0 10.4138276553 202% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 8.0 7.30460921844 110% => OK
Pronoun: 18.0 24.0651302605 75% => OK
Preposition: 49.0 41.998997996 117% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 8.3376753507 168% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2082.0 1615.20841683 129% => OK
No of words: 384.0 315.596192385 122% => OK
Chars per words: 5.421875 5.12529762239 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.4267276788 4.20363070211 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.05664721168 2.80592935109 109% => OK
Unique words: 223.0 176.041082164 127% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.580729166667 0.561755894193 103% => OK
syllable_count: 660.6 506.74238477 130% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 5.43587174349 74% => OK
Article: 3.0 2.52805611222 119% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.10420841683 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 3.0 0.809619238477 371% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 4.76152304609 84% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 16.0721442886 137% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 20.2975951904 84% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 43.150826199 49.4020404114 87% => OK
Chars per sentence: 94.6363636364 106.682146367 89% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.4545454545 20.7667163134 84% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.77272727273 7.06120827912 82% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 8.67935871743 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 3.9879759519 125% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 3.4128256513 147% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.199911697302 0.244688304435 82% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0497281389523 0.084324248473 59% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0471167694255 0.0667982634062 71% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.127218813708 0.151304729494 84% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0353145444734 0.056905535591 62% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.8 13.0946893788 98% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 45.76 50.2224549098 91% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 11.3001002004 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.86 12.4159519038 112% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.37 8.58950901804 109% => OK
difficult_words: 119.0 78.4519038076 152% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 9.78957915832 87% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.1190380762 87% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.7795591182 83% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 84.2696629213 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.5 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.