It is predicted that people will no longer buy printed newspapers or books since they will be able to read everything they want online without any costs. In my opinion, I disagree with this idea and this essay will give the reasons.
On the one hand, it is unlikely that printed-based books and magazines would be replaced by online reading in the future. To commence with, traditional reading could be less disturbing. In other words, within printed books, readers could grip in them for hours without being interrupted. Take Vietnamnet.com as an example, irrespective of being a well-known daily news website, it still contains plenty of pop-up advertisements that censor the main content. Thus, paper-based reading would still be preferred in the long run due to its disturbing-free. The second reason is related to health issues. To explain, unlike web-based reading, which requires people to stare at the electric screen, printed books and newspapers are much more optical-friendly. According to a survey from Australianknowledge.com, 60% of online-based readers have complained that their eyes were strained and dried after reading. Meanwhile, traditional readers claim that their eyes are “healthy”. Therefore, hard copy books could still be circulated in the future as they limit damaged health exposure for readers.
On the other hand, web-based reading might not always be freely accessed. To illustrate, although the Internet provides people with a wide range of reading choices, not all of them are charge-free. For example, Goodreads.com, which is a reliable website for readers’ communities around the world, only allows premium users to fully access their service permanently. Consequently, people may not be assured to read online without fees. Moreover, it is unlikely that people could read everything on the Internet. For example, most authors might disapprove of their books being online accessible for concern about copyrights. As a result, online readers may not be provided with a full source of information.
To conclude, the chances that printed material will be replaced by online reading in the future is questionable. As each reading type has its downsides and bright sides, it would be better if they could jointly exist to provide readers with a variety of choices.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
consequently, if, may, moreover, second, so, still, therefore, thus, well, while, for example, as a result, in my opinion, in other words, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 23.0 13.1623246493 175% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 7.85571142285 204% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 6.0 10.4138276553 58% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 9.0 7.30460921844 123% => OK
Pronoun: 28.0 24.0651302605 116% => OK
Preposition: 48.0 41.998997996 114% => OK
Nominalization: 2.0 8.3376753507 24% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1951.0 1615.20841683 121% => OK
No of words: 362.0 315.596192385 115% => OK
Chars per words: 5.38950276243 5.12529762239 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.36191444098 4.20363070211 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.10428537847 2.80592935109 111% => OK
Unique words: 204.0 176.041082164 116% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.563535911602 0.561755894193 100% => OK
syllable_count: 579.6 506.74238477 114% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.60771543086 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 5.43587174349 110% => OK
Article: 2.0 2.52805611222 79% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.10420841683 143% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 10.0 4.76152304609 210% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 16.0721442886 131% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 20.2975951904 84% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 36.7781237353 49.4020404114 74% => OK
Chars per sentence: 92.9047619048 106.682146367 87% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.2380952381 20.7667163134 83% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.42857142857 7.06120827912 105% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.67935871743 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 3.9879759519 201% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 9.0 3.4128256513 264% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.332696701256 0.244688304435 136% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.101646621145 0.084324248473 121% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.106849148663 0.0667982634062 160% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.262304542954 0.151304729494 173% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.152224911486 0.056905535591 268% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.6 13.0946893788 96% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 54.22 50.2224549098 108% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.3001002004 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.69 12.4159519038 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.75 8.58950901804 102% => OK
difficult_words: 98.0 78.4519038076 125% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 9.78957915832 87% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.1190380762 87% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.7795591182 83% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 78.6516853933 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.0 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.