Mass media and the internet have caused people’s attention spans to get shorter. However, the overall effect has been positive: while people are less able to focus on one thing, they more than make up for it with an enhanced ability to sort through large quantities of information and find what’s important.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and supporting your position, be sure to address the most compelling reasons or examples that could be used to challenge your position.
The overabundance of information caused by the advent of mass media and internet have fundamentally changed the way people interact with information. Instead of spending a long time perusing a single document like people did in the old times, people today are more used to glancing at, and sorting through large piles of sources. Indeed, the change is inevitable and necessary to adopt to the modern society, but the shortening of attention span is nonetheless detrimental.
The enhancement in people's ability to grasp the main topic of material and quickly sort through them is well adapted to the society today. Mass media and the internet have forever changed the way information is shared. In the past, people have access to far less access information. In order to learn about something, they have to visit the library or ask the experts in the field. The scarcity of information forces them to pay attention to the little information they have. They have less information and pay more attention to them. Today, we are inundated by information. In order to find the piece of information we want, we have to quickly look through all the information presented to us, identify their main idea, and decide if they are relevant. Our newly-gained ability to sort through information allows us to take advantage of the abundance of information by helping us find information of higher quality compared to the time the advent of the internet. The ability to grasp the main idea quickly and find useful information is certainly a step forward.
However, the shortened attention span that comes with the ability to sort through information is unarguably deleterious. Because of people's shortened attention span, people today can not understand difficult material, can not perform complex task, can not develop serious ideas. And this negative effect can not be offset by the ability to find useful information. The quality of information is irrelevant if we can not focus on it. Imagine a researcher looking for background information on the topic he or she is investigating. His or her ability to pick out the relevant information helped to find the reading material he or she wanted. However, the inability to focus on the reading for a prolonged time would prevent him or her from truly understanding the material. The effort spent on find the material is wasted. The ability to find information is useless unless people can truly understand the information found. The overall effect will be negative as long as we have trouble focusing.
In conclusion, though the development of the ability to quacking identify useful information is helpful, our shortened attention span will render everything else irrelevant. Because as long we can not focus on the information, it does not matter what information we have. The net effect is undoubtedly negative.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 381, Rule ID: ADOPT_TO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'adapt to'?
Suggestion: adapt to
...e change is inevitable and necessary to adopt to the modern society, but the shortening ...
^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 923, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...truly understand the information found. The overall effect will be negative as long...
^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['but', 'however', 'if', 'look', 'nonetheless', 'so', 'well', 'in conclusion']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.238747553816 0.240241500013 99% => OK
Verbs: 0.178082191781 0.157235817809 113% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0782778864971 0.0880659088768 89% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0508806262231 0.0497285424764 102% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0587084148728 0.0444667217837 132% => Less pronouns wanted. Try not to use 'you, I, they, he...' as the subject of a sentence
Prepositions: 0.103718199609 0.12292977631 84% => OK
Participles: 0.041095890411 0.0406280797675 101% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.92367372875 2.79330140395 105% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0489236790607 0.030933414821 158% => OK
Particles: 0.00195694716243 0.0016655270985 117% => OK
Determiners: 0.0998043052838 0.0997080785238 100% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0195694716243 0.0249443105267 78% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.00391389432485 0.0148568991511 26% => Some subClauses wanted starting by 'Which, Who, What, Whom, Whose.....'
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2855.0 2732.02544248 105% => OK
No of words: 467.0 452.878318584 103% => OK
Chars per words: 6.11349036403 6.0361032391 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.64867537961 4.58838876751 101% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.387580299786 0.366273622748 106% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.306209850107 0.280924506359 109% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.203426124197 0.200843997647 101% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.152034261242 0.132149295362 115% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.92367372875 2.79330140395 105% => OK
Unique words: 209.0 219.290929204 95% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.447537473233 0.48968727796 91% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
Word variations: 49.997276984 55.4138127331 90% => OK
How many sentences: 26.0 20.6194690265 126% => OK
Sentence length: 17.9615384615 23.380412469 77% => OK
Sentence length SD: 45.6468305153 59.4972553346 77% => OK
Chars per sentence: 109.807692308 141.124799967 78% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.9615384615 23.380412469 77% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.307692307692 0.674092028746 46% => More Discourse Markers wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.94800884956 81% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.21349557522 38% => OK
Readability: 48.5825234722 51.4728631049 94% => OK
Elegance: 1.33333333333 1.64882698954 81% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.379985371843 0.391690518653 97% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.16547342695 0.123202303941 134% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.111087610228 0.077325440228 144% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.538438531702 0.547984918172 98% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.138630603675 0.149214159877 93% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.167161083097 0.161403998019 104% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0656508759701 0.0892212321368 74% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.586108217815 0.385218514788 152% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0163753266789 0.0692045440612 24% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.278936272298 0.275328986314 101% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0652454406398 0.0653680567796 100% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 14.0 10.4325221239 134% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 5.30420353982 113% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.88274336283 123% => OK
Positive topic words: 10.0 7.22455752212 138% => OK
Negative topic words: 0.0 3.66592920354 0% => More negative topic words wanted.
Neutral topic words: 3.0 2.70907079646 111% => OK
Total topic words: 13.0 13.5995575221 96% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: This is not the final score. 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.