Medical technology is responsible for the human's life expectancy. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Recently, the phenomenon of the medical technology is responsible for human's life expectancy and its corresponding impacts have sparked a heated debate. Although contested by many that the matter of complicated procedures is highly beneficial, such issue is regarded thoroughly both constructive and consequently positive by a number of individuals. I am inclined to believe that the human's life expectancy depends on the medical technology advancement can be a plus, and I will analyze that throughout this essay.
From a general standpoint, the life expectancy correlates positively with the medical technology advancement can provide the society with some noticeable effects which are rooted in this 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 current policies. Hence, beneficial ramifications of this common phenomenon and accordingly complex procedures apparently can be seen.
Within the realm of a public arena, the human's life expectancy and medical technology advancement are responsible for human's life might increase the consequence of critical issues. As a tangible example, some scientific research undertaken by a prestigious university has asserted the downside of creative processes is correlated negatively with vital issues. Hence, it is correct to presume the preconceived notions of this remarkable phenomenon.
To conclude, while there are several compelling arguments on both sides, I profoundly believe that the benefits of the responsibility of medical technology advancement increases the human's life expectancy far outweigh its drawbacks. Not only do the advantages of this unique phenomenon prove the significance of total outcomes, but also prove the thorny issues' potential implications.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 385, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'humans'' or 'human's'?
Suggestion: humans'; human's
...uals. I am inclined to believe that the humans life expectancy depends on the medical ...
^^^^^^
Line 3, column 41, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'humans'' or 'human's'?
Suggestion: humans'; human's
...Within the realm of a public arena, the humans life expectancy and medical technology ...
^^^^^^
Line 4, column 183, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'humans'' or 'human's'?
Suggestion: humans'; human's
...al technology advancement increases the humans life expectancy far outweigh its drawba...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
accordingly, also, apparently, but, consequently, hence, if, so, well, while, 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: 5.0 6.10837438424 82% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 8.36945812808 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 5.94088669951 135% => OK
Pronoun: 19.0 20.9802955665 91% => OK
Preposition: 29.0 31.9359605911 91% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 5.75862068966 139% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1605.0 1207.87684729 133% => OK
No of words: 274.0 242.827586207 113% => OK
Chars per words: 5.85766423358 5.00649968141 117% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.0685311056 3.92707691288 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.29838378704 2.71678728327 121% => OK
Unique words: 163.0 139.433497537 117% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.594890510949 0.580463131201 102% => OK
syllable_count: 533.7 379.143842365 141% => 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: 3.0 1.56157635468 192% => 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: 24.0 20.5024630542 117% => OK
Sentence length SD: 48.8289305925 50.4703680194 97% => OK
Chars per sentence: 145.909090909 104.977214359 139% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.9090909091 20.9669160288 119% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.0 7.25397266985 110% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.12807881773 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.33497536946 56% => 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: 0.226537927604 0.242375264174 93% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0884892128788 0.0925447433944 96% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.105253137392 0.071462118173 147% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.148793716602 0.151781067708 98% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0595255482817 0.0609392437508 98% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 18.6 12.6369458128 147% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 21.74 53.1260098522 41% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 14.6 6.54236453202 223% => Smog_index is high.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 16.2 10.9458128079 148% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 17.0 11.5310837438 147% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.65 8.32886699507 128% => OK
difficult_words: 101.0 55.0591133005 183% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 17.5 9.94827586207 176% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 10.3980295567 112% => OK
text_standard: 17.0 10.5123152709 162% => 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.