Many people think modern communication technology is having some negative effects on social relationships. To what extent do you agree or disagree.
In recent years, an interesting phenomenon has occurred on the Internet: some social networking websites like Facebook or Instagram have grown to become the most used applications among all others. It is sometimes argued that social applications may create plenty of drawbacks for each individual and the whole society. To a certain extent, I agree that it may be true in the case of many societies. However, I also believe that these websites have brought many benefits to humans.
On the one hand, the idea of social-media applications being utilized as a good source of connectivity is attractive for several reasons. First of all, it is true that people may develop romantic relationships, which help to expand sentiments by using these bases. To illustrate, according to GOOD, which is one of the most famous social magazines, a lower separation ratio was observed in those couples who met through social networking sites. Furthermore, social media has brought friends and relatives together more than ever before. This is especially true for those who live apart. Consequently, we can now instantly reach our loved ones and circulate the latest updates to each other, even if we are located on different continents. Additionally, social networking sites provide positive platforms to share knowledge with each member of the community. Hence, students can now easily share their notes and ideas with their classmates and even with teachers who teach them by accessing these websites.
On the other hand, there is a variety of reasons why I consider that the disadvantages of social networking sites outweigh the advantages. It is noticeable that many of us spend half of our day chatting with other users on messaging apps, such as Messenger, or watching short videos on Tiktok for entertainment. At first, these intriguing contents and videos make us feel relaxed. However, if we build up this habit, we will slowly feel depressed because we gradually withdraw ourselves from real-world interactions and replace them with virtual ones. Moreover, social applications provide a huge environment for cybercriminals. This might be explained by the fact that criminals can easily fake accounts to bully or pour their waves of triggers on others without having to take responsibility. As a result, the victims experience extreme stress and may commit suicide.
In summary, despite the significant positive aspects of social websites, the drawbacks of these platforms are enormous and need to be looked at. As a modern society, everyone should be aware of the difference between real-life and virtual ones.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-04-26 | letrang250191 | 84 | view |
| 2021-09-23 | Haphuong204 | 56 | view |
| 2021-08-31 | adamneyul | 89 | view |
| 2021-08-10 | Linh Nguyen Phan | 63 | view |
| 2017-06-17 | eyraen | 44 | view |
- The maps illustrate an industrial area in Norbiton in the present day compared with plans for future development of the site Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant 67
- The bar chart below shows the percentage of Australian men and women in different age groups who did regular physical activity in 2010 89
- Many developing countries are currently expanding their tourist industries Why is it the case Is it a positive development 78
- The table below shows social and economic indicators for four countries in 1994 according to United Nations statistics 84
- The chart shows the number of shops that closed and the number of new shops opening in a country from 2011 to 2018 Summarize the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, consequently, first, furthermore, hence, however, if, look, may, moreover, so, in summary, such as, as a result, first of all, it is true, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 13.1623246493 114% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 7.85571142285 140% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 10.4138276553 125% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 7.30460921844 164% => OK
Pronoun: 39.0 24.0651302605 162% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 57.0 41.998997996 136% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 8.3376753507 60% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2199.0 1615.20841683 136% => OK
No of words: 416.0 315.596192385 132% => OK
Chars per words: 5.28605769231 5.12529762239 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.51620172871 4.20363070211 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.9317059738 2.80592935109 104% => OK
Unique words: 249.0 176.041082164 141% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.598557692308 0.561755894193 107% => OK
syllable_count: 693.9 506.74238477 137% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 5.43587174349 184% => OK
Article: 5.0 2.52805611222 198% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.10420841683 190% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 0.809619238477 124% => OK
Preposition: 9.0 4.76152304609 189% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 16.0721442886 131% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 20.2975951904 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 41.2061902313 49.4020404114 83% => OK
Chars per sentence: 104.714285714 106.682146367 98% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.8095238095 20.7667163134 95% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.71428571429 7.06120827912 109% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 15.0 8.67935871743 173% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 3.9879759519 125% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 3.4128256513 29% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.114904636761 0.244688304435 47% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0343254817345 0.084324248473 41% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.032647678415 0.0667982634062 49% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.074374455071 0.151304729494 49% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.045103551377 0.056905535591 79% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.4 13.0946893788 102% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 43.73 50.2224549098 87% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 11.3001002004 105% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.4 12.4159519038 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.44 8.58950901804 110% => OK
difficult_words: 128.0 78.4519038076 163% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 9.78957915832 123% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.1190380762 95% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 10.7795591182 111% => 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.