Many people think modern communication technology is having some negative effects on social relationship. Do you agree or disagree?
In this day and age, it is unequivocal that the omnipresence of high-tech modes of communication has been exerting their impact on many aspects of life. It is believed by some that such state-of-the-art communicative devices are wreaking havoc on our social affairs. In my personal perspective, however, I am discontent with this point of view on account that its benefits about connections far-distance relationships.
To commence with, modern means of communication may sabotage one’s relationships with other people. It is indisputable that both children and adults, even the elderly, are engrossed in digital contrivances. With the extreme convenience, people prefer using virtual calls through their phones to meeting in person. In that manner, the interaction between them and relatives, and friends is likely to be deteriorated because mobile phones prevent them from having face-to-face as well as intimate conversations with their loved ones. Another typical example involves people scarify their time to complete game missions, which may disengage them from social gatherings. In that manner, people are becoming less and less emotional and placing their relationships at risk of eroding.
Nevertheless, the main core behind my stand revolves around the effectiveness of advanced devices in connecting relatives despite geographical distance. In today’s society, provided that possessing the internet and a mobile phone, or laptop, a call can be straightforwardly made to communicate with family and friends. Especially, in an era where many people go oversea for study or work purposes, there is a wide range of obstacles to overcome, specifically nostalgia. Therefore, it is no exaggeration to regard a smartphone as an optimal therapy whenever feeling a sense of homesick. Additionally, in globalization society, people have counterparts, and friends in other nations; however, it is easy to meet them frequently via video call, which helps to bridge the gap of communication between each other.
In conclusion, with the aforementioned rationale, I hold a stand that although digital communication brings harm to social relationships to some extent; it serves as a powerful connector in building and maintaining far-away relationships.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022-12-03 | tao_minh_anh | 89 | view |
| 2021-04-06 | sunflower.cow | 67 | view |
| 2017-04-12 | sandrock | 55 | view |
Transition Words or Phrases used:
however, if, may, nevertheless, so, therefore, well, in conclusion, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 13.1623246493 99% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 7.85571142285 38% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 10.4138276553 115% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 7.30460921844 151% => OK
Pronoun: 31.0 24.0651302605 129% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 57.0 41.998997996 136% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 8.3376753507 144% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1919.0 1615.20841683 119% => OK
No of words: 339.0 315.596192385 107% => OK
Chars per words: 5.66076696165 5.12529762239 110% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.29091512845 4.20363070211 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.39284849192 2.80592935109 121% => OK
Unique words: 213.0 176.041082164 121% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.628318584071 0.561755894193 112% => OK
syllable_count: 606.6 506.74238477 120% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.60771543086 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 5.43587174349 147% => OK
Article: 3.0 2.52805611222 119% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.10420841683 48% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 0.809619238477 371% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 11.0 4.76152304609 231% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 16.0721442886 93% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 20.2975951904 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 43.4695295581 49.4020404114 88% => OK
Chars per sentence: 127.933333333 106.682146367 120% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.6 20.7667163134 109% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.2 7.06120827912 74% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.67935871743 81% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 3.9879759519 125% => OK
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: 0.184750770688 0.244688304435 76% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0549125942788 0.084324248473 65% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0404034759607 0.0667982634062 60% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.106618257386 0.151304729494 70% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0080037840279 0.056905535591 14% => 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: 16.5 13.0946893788 126% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 32.22 50.2224549098 64% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.44779559118 150% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 11.3001002004 126% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.84 12.4159519038 128% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.08 8.58950901804 117% => OK
difficult_words: 115.0 78.4519038076 147% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 9.78957915832 92% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.1190380762 107% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 10.7795591182 102% => 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.