Some groups of people have benefited from the modern communications technology but some people have not benefited at all. Do you agree or disagree?
Modern communications have been capturing significant public controversy in recent decades since their potential accessibility is grounded on users’ purchasing powers, raising the questions of disproportionate positive implications enjoyed by different social classes. Given the suggestion that specific groups of people could benefit from modern communications, I totally agree.
It is true that people with robust financial capacities could benefit from modern connections. From the interpersonal interaction perspective, because mobile phones are proved to be prohibitively expensive, the affordability would fall into the capability of individuals with high income flow. This means that the ownership of such telecommunication devices would allow users to deliver a message from one location to another without physical travels, costing unnecessary time, money and efforts. From the educational perspective, due to the rising pattern of online education, many academic programmes from educational institutions have been featured into different platforms on the Internet, exclusively accessed with Internet service providers with monthly subscriptions, which only financially stable individuals could incur. Consequently, they could be equipped with academic and practical knowledge and occupational skills for specific job specifications, making their increased employment prospects an inevitable product.
On the other hand, people with limited financial abilities could not be advantaged from modern communication innovations. Specifically, individuals, especially those residing in poverty-stricken areas are invariably associated with unstable financial resources. If these income sources are limited, even food securities and basic sustenance could even not be ensured, making the affordability of modern communication technologies impossible, hampering their opportunities of rejoicing the advantages of such devices.
In conclusion, I firmly believe that modern connection innovations could be exclusively advantageous to a specific group of people, who earn high income. Official authorities should take steps to address these issues to guarantee the equal modern digital innovation s access irrespective of social classes.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-03-23 | grahamoneil | 89 | view |
| 2020-02-08 | Christina.fyy | 89 | view |
| 2020-02-08 | Christina.fyy | 56 | view |
- Mobile phones and the Internet are very useful for old people. However, this section of population is the fewer users of mobile phones and the Internet. In what ways can mobile phones and the Internet be useful to the old people? How can the old people be 73
- The price of a cup of coffee in six cities from 2010 to 2014 in Australia 57
- The table displays trends concerning the amounts of fast food consumed in Melbourne Summarize the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant 84
- Some groups of people have benefited from the modern communications technology but some people have not benefited at all Do you agree or disagree 89
- Some people think that it is important to have a single language as an international official language Others think that it will make it difficult to identify countries and cause a loss of culture Discuss both views and give your opinion 93
Transition Words or Phrases used:
consequently, if, so, in conclusion, it is true, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 13.1623246493 91% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 7.85571142285 127% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 10.4138276553 38% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 6.0 7.30460921844 82% => OK
Pronoun: 15.0 24.0651302605 62% => OK
Preposition: 42.0 41.998997996 100% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 8.3376753507 132% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1947.0 1615.20841683 121% => OK
No of words: 300.0 315.596192385 95% => OK
Chars per words: 6.49 5.12529762239 127% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.16179145029 4.20363070211 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.42454376523 2.80592935109 122% => OK
Unique words: 200.0 176.041082164 114% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.666666666667 0.561755894193 119% => OK
syllable_count: 620.1 506.74238477 122% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 2.1 1.60771543086 131% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 5.43587174349 92% => OK
Article: 1.0 2.52805611222 40% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.10420841683 95% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.76152304609 84% => 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: 68.5882946768 49.4020404114 139% => OK
Chars per sentence: 162.25 106.682146367 152% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.0 20.7667163134 120% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.5 7.06120827912 78% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.67935871743 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 3.9879759519 25% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 3.4128256513 29% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.185586351403 0.244688304435 76% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0776615133181 0.084324248473 92% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0793984117811 0.0667982634062 119% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.118185043246 0.151304729494 78% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0587855279566 0.056905535591 103% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 21.6 13.0946893788 165% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 3.8 50.2224549098 8% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 14.6 7.44779559118 196% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 18.9 11.3001002004 167% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 20.66 12.4159519038 166% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 11.51 8.58950901804 134% => OK
difficult_words: 126.0 78.4519038076 161% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 9.78957915832 133% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 10.1190380762 119% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 10.7795591182 111% => 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.