The technology development has affected social relationships from person to person. Do the positive aspects of this trend outweigh the negative aspects?
In recent decades, the issue of whether the proliferation of technology, especially communication technology, exerts detrimental impacts on human social relationships or not has aroused people’s discussion. Although the implications of technology on social relationships are not without demerits, the upsides of this will justify these.
An array of negative outcomes of technology on human social relationships can be identified. First, since social networking users have excessive exposure to virtual world, there is a high possibility that they could abuse social media to have interaction with other people, either relatives or even acquaintances. For example, in lieu of having face-to-face conversation with others, many today’s adolescents are inclined to pay too much attention to their own cell phones and chat with virtual friends on social networking sites, potentially undermining the quality of their real relationships and destroying them in the near future. Second, people, especially busy ones, are unable to build or maintain their relationships with friends and family due to devoting too much time to working continuously, because technology allows them to boost work productivity. This means that workload keeps them too busy to nurture their relationships with others, consequently fracturing concrete relationships.
There are, however, some dazzling benefits that can easily overshadow the negative technology’s impacts on human social relationships. Initially, thanks to the proliferation of technology, it has made communication accessible, which helps citizens be able to have conversation with others without requiring physical travel and keep in touch with people at ease. For instance, a touch-screen allows people to have chat via social media such as Facebook and Instagram, which in turns promote their social behavior. Additionally, by harnessing communication technology, people can expand their social circles. This means that citizens are able to make friends regardless of geographical barriers, making people around the globe socialized.
In conclusion, there are still some existed negative implications of technology on people’s relationships; yet, the positive impacts of it will be far more significant thanks to accessibility and no connection barrier.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-07-30 | Anastasia Chinemerem Izundu | 61 | view |
| 2020-03-27 | anhthu 12234 | 84 | view |
| 2020-03-09 | chupika | 89 | view |
| 2020-03-09 | chupika | 89 | view |
- Nowadays children watch TV more than they did in the past Reasons Measures 89
- The technology development has affected social relationships from person to person Do the positive aspects of this trend outweigh the negative aspects 84
- Nowadays children watch TV more than they did in the past Reasons Measures 89
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 413, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Use past participle here: 'chatted'.
Suggestion: chatted
...e, a touch-screen allows people to have chat via social media such as Facebook and I...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
consequently, first, however, if, second, so, still, for example, for instance, in conclusion, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 13.1623246493 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 7.85571142285 76% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 10.4138276553 86% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 7.30460921844 82% => OK
Pronoun: 20.0 24.0651302605 83% => OK
Preposition: 53.0 41.998997996 126% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 8.3376753507 132% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1977.0 1615.20841683 122% => OK
No of words: 332.0 315.596192385 105% => OK
Chars per words: 5.95481927711 5.12529762239 116% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.2685907696 4.20363070211 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.33266356919 2.80592935109 119% => OK
Unique words: 188.0 176.041082164 107% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.566265060241 0.561755894193 101% => OK
syllable_count: 612.9 506.74238477 121% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.60771543086 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 5.43587174349 55% => OK
Article: 5.0 2.52805611222 198% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.10420841683 143% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.76152304609 105% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 16.0721442886 81% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 25.0 20.2975951904 123% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 64.1824322956 49.4020404114 130% => OK
Chars per sentence: 152.076923077 106.682146367 143% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.5384615385 20.7667163134 123% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.84615384615 7.06120827912 111% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.67935871743 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 3.9879759519 75% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 3.4128256513 59% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.144972634845 0.244688304435 59% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0646419018284 0.084324248473 77% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0446631045525 0.0667982634062 67% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0966630823485 0.151304729494 64% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0214664309421 0.056905535591 38% => 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: 19.4 13.0946893788 148% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 29.18 50.2224549098 58% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 13.0 7.44779559118 175% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.4 11.3001002004 136% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 17.53 12.4159519038 141% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.73 8.58950901804 113% => OK
difficult_words: 102.0 78.4519038076 130% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 9.78957915832 143% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 10.1190380762 119% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 10.7795591182 121% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 84.2696629213 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.5 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.