Technology provides us a lot of means to communicate. But now that people have the ability to talk to each other in a wider variety of methods, our communication and social abilities have taken a step back
Why does technological advance hurt nontechnical communication?
How can we solve this problem?
Technological breakthrough has brought diverse boons to humanity which enable a comfortable and convenient life. Though the benefits behind the progress are crucial, people are suffering from lack of in-person communication and their social skills are deteriorating. This essay will discuss the reasons of why high-tech advancements exacerbate interpersonal interactions and propose the viable solution to solve this issue.
The modern world provides individuals with myriads of ways to stay in touch with one another via dozens of information technology devices. This means that traditional avenues for thought exchange have been replaced with wireless connection, which in its turn guarantees the convenience for humans. As a species, we crave for simplicity and comfort for our day-to-day activities, therefore gladly opt to plunge into these new ways of communication. For example, many companies bid to arrange even local corporate meetings via Skype, despite being able to schedule ones in a meeting rooms as all the members are in the same premises. In other words, technology has made it simple to talk to others with just a click of a button.
Although, interaction through the above-mentioned advances maybe beneficial in some cases, many of us have lost the human touch as well as social skills. The best way to tackle this problem is considered restriction on mobile devices at workplace. However, in the long run, not only companies’ policies ought to be strict to their employees, but also the authorities should somehow encourage people outside from workspace to develop their socialisation without mobile applications. This means that people who are at close proximity can afford to speak to one another without resorting to technology. Thus, the solutions to overuse of high-tech communication are seen in barring the use of it.
In conclusion, due to the rise of technical advances, human beings have received access to convenience in their interaction. Nevertheless, gaining one benefit often entails losing of another, which in this case is social abilities. The possible solution to curb the abuse of online chat is to limit it at least in professional environment.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-04-19 | SUSANNA PETROSYAN | 89 | view |
| 2020-01-09 | SUSANNA PETROSYAN | 97 | view |
- The most important aim of science ought to be to improve people s lives To what extent do you agree or disagree 89
- News editors decide what to broadcast on television and what to print in newspapers What factors do you think influence these decisions Do you think that there is too much emphasis on bad news these days 89
- Do you believe that professional athletes make good role models for young people Support your opinion with reasons and examples from your own knowledge or experience 78
- Tourism has negative environmental impacts on tourist areas 89
- The government should ban smoking in all public places even though this would restrict some other people s freedoms Do you agree or disagree Give reasons for your answer 63
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 523, Rule ID: CLOSE_SCRUTINY[1]
Message: Use simply 'proximity'.
Suggestion: proximity
...ions. This means that people who are at close proximity can afford to speak to one another with...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 13, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...re seen in barring the use of it. In conclusion, due to the rise of techni...
^^^
Line 13, column 344, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...t at least in professional environment.
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, however, if, may, nevertheless, so, therefore, thus, well, at least, for example, in conclusion, as well as, in other words, in some cases
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 13.1623246493 91% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 7.85571142285 51% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 10.4138276553 48% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 6.0 7.30460921844 82% => OK
Pronoun: 20.0 24.0651302605 83% => OK
Preposition: 64.0 41.998997996 152% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 8.3376753507 168% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1871.0 1615.20841683 116% => OK
No of words: 342.0 315.596192385 108% => OK
Chars per words: 5.47076023392 5.12529762239 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.30037696126 4.20363070211 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.10824214769 2.80592935109 111% => OK
Unique words: 222.0 176.041082164 126% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.649122807018 0.561755894193 116% => OK
syllable_count: 585.9 506.74238477 116% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 5.43587174349 74% => OK
Article: 4.0 2.52805611222 158% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.10420841683 95% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 0.809619238477 124% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.76152304609 84% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 16.0721442886 100% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 20.2975951904 103% => OK
Sentence length SD: 37.5985683737 49.4020404114 76% => OK
Chars per sentence: 116.9375 106.682146367 110% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.375 20.7667163134 103% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.3125 7.06120827912 132% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.01903807615 60% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.67935871743 81% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 3.9879759519 50% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 3.4128256513 205% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.145307517366 0.244688304435 59% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0436786994924 0.084324248473 52% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0384465054599 0.0667982634062 58% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0786208184895 0.151304729494 52% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0206845158488 0.056905535591 36% => 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: 15.0 13.0946893788 115% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.7 50.2224549098 83% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.44779559118 150% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 11.3001002004 112% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.45 12.4159519038 116% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.71 8.58950901804 113% => OK
difficult_words: 109.0 78.4519038076 139% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.5 9.78957915832 128% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.1190380762 103% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 10.7795591182 121% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 89.8876404494 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 8.0 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.