Medical technology can increase life expectancy. Is it a blessing or curse?
Recently, the phenomenon of "the medical technology can increase life expectancy" and its corresponding impact has sparked a long-running dispute. Whereas many people are debating the proposition that medical technologies might be remarkably fruitful, such issue is regarded thoroughly both constructive and positive by a remarkable number of individuals. I am inclined to believe that the importance of medical technologies on life expectancy can be a plus, and I will analyze that throughout this essay.
From the medical standpoint, increasing life expectancy because of medical technologies can provide the society with profound effects, which might stem from the fact that being healthy and high quality medical cares are inextricably bound up. Regarding my personal experience, when I was a university student, I performed an academic experiment that discovered the role of hospitals on the people's life. Thus, invaluable ramifications of both increasing quality of life and new surgery methods distinctly can be observed.
Within the realm of psychology, without the slightest doubt, the effects of medical technologies on life expectancy might exacerbate the already catastrophic consequences of the old people's self-esteem. Moreover, fundamental aspects of aging can relate to the reality that the demerits of the mental and physical illnesses can pertain to reaching old ages. As a tangible example, some scientific research undertaken by a prestigious university has asserted that if the downsides of aggressive surgeries were correlated positively with no surgery treatments, the local authorities would ultimately address aging problems. Hence, it is reasonable to infer the preconceived notion of living more than a century.
To conclude, despite several compelling arguments on both sides, I opt to vigorously support the idea that the merits of increasing life expectancy due to medical technologies far outweigh its downsides.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-09-29 | mohammadsabet | 77 | view |
| 2022-12-21 | Nina Tsarevich | 80 | view |
| 2022-07-15 | Nawal Fatima | 72 | view |
| 2022-07-15 | Nawal Fatima | 77 | view |
| 2021-11-01 | Alireza.r.m | 85 | view |
- Should wealthy nations be required to share their wealth among poorer nations by providing such things as food and education Or is it the responsibility of the governments of poorer nations to look after their citizens themselves 75
- There are more negative impacts than benefits of people using mobile devices Do you agree 88
- If Voting is compulsory in democratic society what conclusions can we draw about Nature of democracy 88
- The disadvantages of tourism in less developed countries are as great as the advantages What is your opinion 88
- The graph bellow shows the consumption of fish and some different kinds of meat in a European country between 1979 and 2004 Summarize the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant 78
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 134, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
...nd its corresponding impact has sparked a long-running dispute. Whereas many people are debati...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 391, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'peoples'' or 'people's'?
Suggestion: peoples'; people's
...discovered the role of hospitals on the peoples life. Thus, invaluable ramifications of...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
hence, if, moreover, regarding, so, thus, whereas
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.5418719212 95% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 6.10837438424 180% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 8.36945812808 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 5.94088669951 168% => OK
Pronoun: 18.0 20.9802955665 86% => OK
Preposition: 38.0 31.9359605911 119% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.75862068966 69% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1679.0 1207.87684729 139% => OK
No of words: 288.0 242.827586207 119% => OK
Chars per words: 5.82986111111 5.00649968141 116% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.11953428781 3.92707691288 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.28946649102 2.71678728327 121% => OK
Unique words: 178.0 139.433497537 128% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.618055555556 0.580463131201 106% => OK
syllable_count: 537.3 379.143842365 142% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.9 1.57093596059 121% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.6157635468 87% => OK
Article: 4.0 1.56157635468 256% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 2.0 1.71428571429 117% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 0.931034482759 215% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 6.0 3.65517241379 164% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 11.0 12.6551724138 87% => OK
Sentence length: 26.0 20.5024630542 127% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 50.1529890839 50.4703680194 99% => OK
Chars per sentence: 152.636363636 104.977214359 145% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.1818181818 20.9669160288 125% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.45454545455 7.25397266985 61% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.12807881773 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.33497536946 37% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 6.9802955665 57% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 2.75862068966 145% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 2.91625615764 103% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.437540038498 0.242375264174 181% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.161334248501 0.0925447433944 174% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.119684905691 0.071462118173 167% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.271958190019 0.151781067708 179% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0838703395478 0.0609392437508 138% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 19.1 12.6369458128 151% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 19.71 53.1260098522 37% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 13.0 6.54236453202 199% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 17.0 10.9458128079 155% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.83 11.5310837438 146% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.96 8.32886699507 132% => OK
difficult_words: 110.0 55.0591133005 200% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 16.0 9.94827586207 161% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 10.3980295567 119% => OK
text_standard: 17.0 10.5123152709 162% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 88.8888888889 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 80.0 Out of 90
---------------------
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.