Medical technology is responsible for the human’s life expectancy. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Essay topics:

Medical technology is responsible for the human’s life expectancy. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Recently, the phenomenon of medical technology is responsible for the human’s life expectancy and its corresponding impacts have sparked a heated debate. Although contested by many that the matter of complex procedures is highly beneficial, such issue is regarded thoroughly both constructive and consequently positive by a substantial number of individuals. I am inclined to believe that medical technology for the life expectancy can be a plus, and I will analyze that throughout this essay.

From a social standpoint, food and living condition can provide the society with some noticeable effects, which are rooted in the fact that crucial issues, as well as ultimate outcomes, are inextricably bound up. According to my own experience, when I was a university student, I performed an academic experiment, which discovered the effect of healthy food and essential nutrients on human's life. Thus, beneficial ramifications of both this common phenomenon and accordingly complicated procedures apparently can be seen.

Within the realm of a public arena, technology for the human’s life expectancy might increase the consequences of critical issues. As a tangible example, some scientific research undertaken by a prestigious university has asserted that the downside of creative processes is correlated negatively with vital issues. Hence, it is correct to presume the preconceived notion of this remarkable phenomenon.

To conclude, while there are several compelling arguments on both sides, I profoundly believe that the benefits of medical technology far outweigh its drawbacks. Not only do the advantages of this unique phenomenon prove the significance of total outcomes, but also pinpoint thorny issues' potential implications.

Votes
Average: 8.8 (1 vote)
This essay topic by users
Post date Users Rates Link to Content
2020-01-29 manraj123 55 view
2020-01-28 manraj123 80 view
2020-01-27 manraj123 85 view
2020-01-27 manraj123 77 view
2020-01-19 saeidazizi 88 view
Essay Categories

Comments

Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 386, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'humans'' or 'human's'?
Suggestion: humans'; human's
...healthy food and essential nutrients on humans life. Thus, beneficial ramifications of...
^^^^^^

Transition Words or Phrases used:
accordingly, also, apparently, but, consequently, hence, if, so, thus, well, while, as well as

Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 10.5418719212 104% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 6.10837438424 82% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 8.36945812808 84% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 5.94088669951 151% => OK
Pronoun: 19.0 20.9802955665 91% => OK
Preposition: 28.0 31.9359605911 88% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.75862068966 69% => OK

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1497.0 1207.87684729 124% => OK
No of words: 259.0 242.827586207 107% => OK
Chars per words: 5.77992277992 5.00649968141 115% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.01166760082 3.92707691288 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.28183056999 2.71678728327 121% => OK
Unique words: 167.0 139.433497537 120% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.644787644788 0.580463131201 111% => OK
syllable_count: 485.1 379.143842365 128% => 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: 1.0 1.56157635468 64% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 1.71428571429 292% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 0.931034482759 215% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 3.65517241379 109% => OK

Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 11.0 12.6551724138 87% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 20.5024630542 112% => OK
Sentence length SD: 35.4792454754 50.4703680194 70% => OK
Chars per sentence: 136.090909091 104.977214359 130% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.5454545455 20.9669160288 112% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.54545454545 7.25397266985 118% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.12807881773 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.33497536946 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 6.9802955665 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 2.75862068966 36% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 2.91625615764 69% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?

Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.204501754248 0.242375264174 84% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0757462930757 0.0925447433944 82% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0971823439315 0.071462118173 136% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.116805487217 0.151781067708 77% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0751778905442 0.0609392437508 123% => OK

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.6 12.6369458128 139% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 22.75 53.1260098522 43% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 13.0 6.54236453202 199% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.8 10.9458128079 144% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.54 11.5310837438 143% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.93 8.32886699507 131% => OK
difficult_words: 101.0 55.0591133005 183% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 16.0 9.94827586207 161% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.3980295567 108% => OK
text_standard: 16.0 10.5123152709 152% => 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.