The advanced medical technology has a responsibility to human’s life expectancy. Do you think it is a blessing or a curse?
Recently, the responsibility of medical technology in a human's life expectancy has sparked an ongoing controversy, which inevitably leads to a moot question, "is it a blessing or a curse?". Whereas it is a widely held view that medical technology is highly beneficial, I will discuss the controversial aspects of that throughout this essay.
From the health standpoint, life expectancy is bound up inextricably with the improvement of medical technology, which indicates they lead to both medical responsibility and living longer. As a well-known example, a longitudinal study conducted by eminent scientists in 2014 demonstrates the relationship between hospitals and clinics as well as an exponential increase in health caring. Their academic criticism was impressive. Consequently, my empirical evidence presented thus far support the contention that the likelihood of a healthy lifestyle, is correlated positively with not only advanced medical technology but also human's life expectancy.
Within the realm of Biosciences, without the slightest doubt, good sanitation system attribute to advance medical technology and human's life expectancy, in that it would come down to developed hospitals, well-built clinics, and individual life carer. A salient example of such attribution is non-governmental organizations, which is a concern since it was mistaken to take life expectancies' improvement for granted. Had there been a paradigm shift earlier, scholars might have had the opportunity to pinpoint health problems. Hence, it is reasonable to infer the pivotal role of advanced medical technology.
To conclude, as for myself, as the saying goes "all's well that ends well," after analyzing what elaborated above, I firmly believe that, the influence of advanced medical technology in humans' life expectancy cannot be deniable. However, we perceive that, with the benefit of hindsight, the more we research, the further we discover.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 57, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'humans'' or 'human's'?
Suggestion: humans'; human's
...sponsibility of medical technology in a humans life expectancy has sparked an ongoing ...
^^^^^^
Line 4, column 78, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma
Suggestion: , &apos
...ying goes 'alls well that ends well,' after analyzing what elaborated above,...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, consequently, hence, however, if, so, thus, well, whereas, as for, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 10.5418719212 114% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 6.10837438424 65% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 8.36945812808 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 5.94088669951 168% => OK
Pronoun: 22.0 20.9802955665 105% => OK
Preposition: 36.0 31.9359605911 113% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 5.75862068966 156% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1670.0 1207.87684729 138% => OK
No of words: 289.0 242.827586207 119% => OK
Chars per words: 5.7785467128 5.00649968141 115% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.12310562562 3.92707691288 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.3415932749 2.71678728327 123% => OK
Unique words: 183.0 139.433497537 131% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.63321799308 0.580463131201 109% => OK
syllable_count: 528.3 379.143842365 139% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.57093596059 115% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.6157635468 130% => OK
Article: 6.0 1.56157635468 384% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 4.0 1.71428571429 233% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 0.931034482759 107% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 3.65517241379 192% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 12.6551724138 95% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 20.5024630542 117% => OK
Sentence length SD: 63.2167237894 50.4703680194 125% => OK
Chars per sentence: 139.166666667 104.977214359 133% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.0833333333 20.9669160288 115% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.33333333333 7.25397266985 101% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.12807881773 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.33497536946 37% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 6.9802955665 172% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 0.0 2.75862068966 0% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 2.91625615764 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.363584588311 0.242375264174 150% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.114762292496 0.0925447433944 124% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.114828765891 0.071462118173 161% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.216057812656 0.151781067708 142% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0637485955992 0.0609392437508 105% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.8 12.6369458128 141% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 30.2 53.1260098522 57% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 13.0 6.54236453202 199% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.0 10.9458128079 137% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.54 11.5310837438 143% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.62 8.32886699507 128% => OK
difficult_words: 106.0 55.0591133005 193% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 17.0 9.94827586207 171% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 10.3980295567 112% => OK
text_standard: 17.0 10.5123152709 162% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 72.0 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.