The claim that youths are inclined towards excessive use of electronic devices which has deprived them from face to face social engagement. It seem logical that the vast use of portable devices has hindered the social development. If we analyze it deeply, there are certain aspects supporting social interaction by the use of these devices.
The main assertion of the claim is that young people are not able to develop sufficient social skills. The reason for this claim is that people are coming up with artificial identities in the virtual media that hinder absolute interaction with real people. However, this controversy lies within the reason stated. People are engaging in social media like Facebook and Twitter through comments, posts and messages. This has helped people residing at different corners of the world interact with each other. People put their view on their topic of interest-be it educational, political or any other. For instace, I am able to make a good realtionship with a professor of a University in another country with the help of email. Rather than reducing the social interaction, these portable devices has helped us cooperate and progress for the mutual benefit. People have developed interacting and networking skills using these technologies. If these were not there, people would not be able to know what is going on around the world. Thus, the electronic devices has helped boost social engagement.
On the other hand, the author is worried that people are not interacting with people around them honestly. This statement is also a veracious claim in the sense that young people are spending more and more time in the portable devices. The mobiles devices today have a vast store of applications where youths can spend their most of the time engaging with them. There are games, social media, educational platforms, news portals and many other ways in which youths can keep them busy with these devices. This trend has led to a dwindled time for their family members. All the time they are busy scrolling down the timeline of a social media and getting updates, commenting and posting. It is reasonable to think that their engagement with people wround them is restricted.
Another important aspect that author wants to focus is the honesty of these young people. The vitual interaction in the electroniv devices is not always real. There are a number of fake people pretending to be some one, not interacting honestly. People do not always show their real life/face in the social media, which is a fallacious aspect of these devices.
In conclusion, there are both good and bad aspects of the using a portable device like smartphone and tablets. It is in the hand of the user to use it the way he wants. As the author states that there is less soacial interaction with people around them, the youths might have to dedicate their time on spending time with their nearest ones as well, which will eventually help them gain social skills.
- CLAIM Young people s tendency to make extensive use of portable devices like smartphones and tablets has hurt their development of social skills REASON These devices encourage users to form artificial personalities and relationships online rather than ful 54
- The following editorial appeared in the Lamont Times newspaper quot During last year s election only 35 percent of people living in Lamont voted whereas inthe nearby affluent town of Chiswick that number was 75 percent In a recent survey ofyoung ad 70
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 144, Rule ID: IT_VBZ[1]
Message: Did you mean 'seems'?
Suggestion: seems
...from face to face social engagement. It seem logical that the vast use of portable d...
^^^^
Line 7, column 211, Rule ID: ANY_BODY[1]
Message: Did you mean 'someone'?
Suggestion: someone
... number of fake people pretending to be some one, not interacting honestly. People do no...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, honestly, however, if, so, thus, well, in conclusion, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 27.0 19.5258426966 138% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 12.4196629213 40% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 14.8657303371 74% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 11.3162921348 133% => OK
Pronoun: 48.0 33.0505617978 145% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 63.0 58.6224719101 107% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 12.9106741573 85% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2488.0 2235.4752809 111% => OK
No of words: 498.0 442.535393258 113% => OK
Chars per words: 4.99598393574 5.05705443957 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.72397222731 4.55969084622 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.54412836779 2.79657885939 91% => OK
Unique words: 230.0 215.323595506 107% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.461847389558 0.4932671777 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 779.4 704.065955056 111% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 6.24550561798 144% => OK
Article: 8.0 4.99550561798 160% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 3.10617977528 97% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.38483146067 46% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 28.0 20.2370786517 138% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 23.0359550562 74% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 35.2044321189 60.3974514979 58% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 88.8571428571 118.986275619 75% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.7857142857 23.4991977007 76% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.75 5.21951772744 53% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 10.2758426966 117% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 5.13820224719 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 13.0 4.83258426966 269% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.293544329868 0.243740707755 120% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.088451070203 0.0831039109588 106% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0522656821251 0.0758088955206 69% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.176866245033 0.150359130593 118% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0490184449872 0.0667264976115 73% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.0 14.1392134831 78% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 54.22 48.8420337079 111% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.92365168539 39% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 12.1743820225 81% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.42 12.1639044944 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.81 8.38706741573 93% => OK
difficult_words: 105.0 100.480337079 104% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 11.8971910112 97% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 11.2143820225 78% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 54.17 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.25 Out of 6
---------------------
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.