Some people believe that the range of technology available to individuals today is increasing the gap between rich people and poor people. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
These days, the question of whether the gap between the upper-class and the lower-class is widened as a result of technological advancements or not has aroused people discussion. From my perspective, I content that it is not.
There are myriad of reasons why I support that technology does not increase the gap between the rich and the poor, but can possibly bridge it. First, it is obvious that technology enables people to boost work productivity, which creates the well-being for everyone. For example, with the proliferation of transportations, sources of workforce and material have been transported by express delivery. Therefore, the economic growth has been vigorously stimulated, which exemplifies the fact that every nation all concentrates on conducting research and applying technology to make it thrive.
Moreover, that opinion of technology narrowing the difference between social classes is reinforced by more supporting evidence below. By applying technology properly, every one, specially the have-nots from rural areas can have a better and simpler access to mountains of information online and make major career shifts. For instance, with the development of the Internet and digital devices, today, people who live in poverty can harness technology to acquire a wealthy of knowledge in many fields, cultivate their skills and seek unprecedented ways to boost their individual earning such as online business, Youtube phenomena. Last but not least, the advancements of technology also create more job opportunities for the poor. In recent years, thanks to the establishment of a substantial number of ride-sharing applications including Grab, Go Viet, Be, Uber, copious needy ones have been saved from deficiency and made money from these services.
In conclusion, for the reason provided above, I strongly believe that technology does not widen the wealth gap, but in contrast, it helps improve the social difference between the haves and the have-nots.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-11-06 | vantran2297 | 84 | view |
- Pollution of rivers, lakes and seas is a major concern for people who seek to protect the environment. What are the possible causes of water pollution, and what effects does this have on animal life and human society? 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? 84
- The technology development has affected social relationships from person to person Do the negative aspects of this trend outweigh the positive aspects 50
- Some findings have revealed that cities around the world are growing large. Could you outline the possible causes and predict consequences? 78
- A few major languages are increasingly spoken in different countries, while the usage of others is rapidly declining. Is this a positive or a negative development? 84
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 13, Rule ID: WHETHER[3]
Message: Wordiness: Shorten this phrase to the shortest possible suggestion.
Suggestion: whether; the question whether
These days, the question of whether the gap between the upper-class and the...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 120, Rule ID: MAY_COULD_POSSIBLY[1]
Message: Use simply 'can'.
Suggestion: can
... gap between the rich and the poor, but can possibly bridge it. First, it is obvious that te...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, if, moreover, so, therefore, well, for example, for instance, in conclusion, in contrast, such as, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 13.1623246493 68% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 7.85571142285 38% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 10.4138276553 134% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 7.30460921844 123% => OK
Pronoun: 19.0 24.0651302605 79% => OK
Preposition: 39.0 41.998997996 93% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 8.3376753507 108% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1688.0 1615.20841683 105% => OK
No of words: 303.0 315.596192385 96% => OK
Chars per words: 5.57095709571 5.12529762239 109% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.17215713816 4.20363070211 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.07429949891 2.80592935109 110% => OK
Unique words: 187.0 176.041082164 106% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.617161716172 0.561755894193 110% => OK
syllable_count: 518.4 506.74238477 102% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 5.43587174349 110% => OK
Article: 3.0 2.52805611222 119% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.10420841683 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 0.809619238477 247% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 6.0 4.76152304609 126% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 16.0721442886 75% => 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: 25.0 20.2975951904 123% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 63.7728172674 49.4020404114 129% => OK
Chars per sentence: 140.666666667 106.682146367 132% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.25 20.7667163134 122% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.6666666667 7.06120827912 151% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.01903807615 40% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.67935871743 104% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 0.0 3.9879759519 0% => 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: 0.18673567689 0.244688304435 76% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0664289545587 0.084324248473 79% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0587588273133 0.0667982634062 88% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.116575335169 0.151304729494 77% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0200977683196 0.056905535591 35% => 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: 17.4 13.0946893788 133% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 37.64 50.2224549098 75% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.44779559118 150% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 11.3001002004 126% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.32 12.4159519038 123% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.14 8.58950901804 118% => OK
difficult_words: 101.0 78.4519038076 129% => 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: 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.