The cashless society is becoming a reality. More and more people are using credit cards for payment, and fewer people use cash. How realistic do you think it is? And do you think it is beneficial or problematic?
Recently, the phenomenon of cashless society has sparked an ongoing controversy, which inevitably leads to a moot question "Is it a beneficial or problematic reality?". Whereas, it is a widely held view that cashless society is highly beneficial.
From the economic standpoint, the cashless society is bound up inextricably with credit cards, which indicates they lead to both financial growth and payments. As a well-known example, a longitudinal study conducted by eminent scientists in 2014 demonstrates the relationship between revenues and incomes as well as an exponential increase in economic developments. Their academic criticism was impressive. Consequently, my empirical evidence presented thus far supports the contention that the likelihood of banking systems is correlated positively with not only debit cards but also cash payments.
Within the realm of technology, without the slightest doubt, real cashless society attribute to high-tech payments, in that it would come down to e-commerce, cyber transactions, and technological devices. A salient example of such attribution is the swift system, which is a cause of concern since it was mistaken to take monetary systems for granted. Had there been a paradigm shift earlier, scholars have had the opportunity to pinpoint x problems. Likewise, hardly had they confined their attention to smartphones, the internet, and even black money. Hence, it is correct to infer the pivotal role of credit cards as a real feature of cashless society.
To conclude, as for myself, as the saying goes "all's well that ends well," after analyzing what elaborated above, I firmly believe that cashless society is a beneficial result of the technology. However, with the benefit of hindsight, we conceive the more we research, the further we discover.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 180, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “Whereas” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...neficial or problematic reality?'. Whereas, it is a widely held view that cashless...
^^^^^^^
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, likewise, 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: 1.0 6.10837438424 16% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 8.36945812808 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 5.94088669951 135% => OK
Pronoun: 20.0 20.9802955665 95% => OK
Preposition: 34.0 31.9359605911 106% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.75862068966 87% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1546.0 1207.87684729 128% => OK
No of words: 277.0 242.827586207 114% => OK
Chars per words: 5.58122743682 5.00649968141 111% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.07962216107 3.92707691288 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.17609934236 2.71678728327 117% => OK
Unique words: 181.0 139.433497537 130% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.653429602888 0.580463131201 113% => OK
syllable_count: 477.0 379.143842365 126% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.57093596059 108% => 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: 2.0 0.931034482759 215% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 7.0 3.65517241379 192% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 12.6551724138 103% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 20.5024630542 102% => OK
Sentence length SD: 53.6400450957 50.4703680194 106% => OK
Chars per sentence: 118.923076923 104.977214359 113% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.3076923077 20.9669160288 102% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.53846153846 7.25397266985 104% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.12807881773 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.33497536946 37% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 6.9802955665 158% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 0.0 2.75862068966 0% => 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: 0.119396847801 0.242375264174 49% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0373225455116 0.0925447433944 40% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0300098497136 0.071462118173 42% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0709792613862 0.151781067708 47% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0187314695724 0.0609392437508 31% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.5 12.6369458128 123% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.7 53.1260098522 78% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 6.54236453202 171% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 10.9458128079 116% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.08 11.5310837438 131% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.49 8.32886699507 126% => OK
difficult_words: 102.0 55.0591133005 185% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 9.94827586207 116% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.3980295567 100% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 10.5123152709 105% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 77.7777777778 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 70.0 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.