Many people believe that social networking sites have had a huge negative impact on both individuals and society.
With the development of technology, the use of social networking sites has increased dramatically throughout the last 20 years. Keep this in mind, there are many people believe that the use of social networking sites does have a variety of detrimental impact on both people and society. However, while I believe that social networking sites enhance and improve people’s social lives, I agree that it causes some inevitable effects on our community.
With regards to people, the use of networking sites, such as Facebook or Twitter, do have distinct advantages. Firstly, it allows people to connect freely and efficiently with others who share similar experiences, hobbies, and interest, without the concern of geographical barriers. Additionally, it also enables people who work or study abroad to communicate with their family or friends. Consequently, it limits the feeling of loneliness and allows people to feel proximity. Therefore, the use of networking sites is essential for people’s social lives as it enables people to communicate with each other, especially those who have the issue of geographical barriers.
On the other hand, the use of social networking sites does have some detrimental impacts on our community due to its extremely addictive nature. The concern of people starting to become addictive to social networking sites has increased dramatically and this severe concern is especially happening among youths and young adults. The addictive nature often resulting in people to have less crucial face-to-face communications, and it also encourages people to have a sedentary lifestyle. Consequently, it causes fewer people to join community activities and more people are less connected with their neighbourhoods.
In conclusion, social networking sites enable people to communicate with others without the concern of geographical barriers, and this is especially advantages to people who are working or study abroad. However, due to the addictive nature of networking sites, it decreases crucial face-to-face communication between people and encourages people to have a detrimental sedentary lifestyle.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, consequently, first, firstly, however, if, so, therefore, while, in conclusion, such as, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 6.0 7.0 86% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 0.0 1.00243902439 0% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 6.8 221% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 7.0 3.15609756098 222% => Less relative clauses wanted (maybe 'which' is over used).
Pronoun: 22.0 5.60731707317 392% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 49.0 33.7804878049 145% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 3.97073170732 76% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1833.0 965.302439024 190% => OK
No of words: 321.0 196.424390244 163% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.71028037383 4.92477711251 116% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.23278547379 3.73543355544 113% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.15217079861 2.65546596893 119% => OK
Unique words: 147.0 106.607317073 138% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.457943925234 0.547539520022 84% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 588.6 283.868780488 207% => syllable counts are too long.
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.45097560976 124% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 1.53170731707 392% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 6.0 4.33902439024 138% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.07073170732 93% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 0.482926829268 621% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 5.0 3.36585365854 149% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 8.94146341463 157% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.4926829268 98% => OK
Sentence length SD: 34.5762245788 43.030603864 80% => OK
Chars per sentence: 130.928571429 112.824112599 116% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.9285714286 22.9334400587 100% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.0 5.23603664747 153% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 3.83414634146 104% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 1.69756097561 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 3.70975609756 270% => Less positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 1.13902439024 176% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.09268292683 49% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.355500966831 0.215688989381 165% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.146837096729 0.103423049105 142% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.113844821109 0.0843802449381 135% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.257293404949 0.15604864568 165% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.11013991963 0.0819641961636 134% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.9 13.2329268293 128% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 32.22 61.2550243902 53% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 11.2 6.51609756098 172% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 10.3012195122 138% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.13 11.4140731707 141% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.71 8.06136585366 108% => OK
difficult_words: 81.0 40.7170731707 199% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 11.4329268293 101% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.9970731707 98% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.0658536585 108% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 67.4157303371 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 6.0 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.