Maintaining public libraries is a waste of money since computer technology is now replacing their functions.
To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?
In contemporary society, technological computers invented by state-of-the-art devices are able to replace all public libraries’ functions. Therefore, many hold a belief that governments and authorities should not waste budgets for building public libraries. To the best of my knowledge, this point of view is grounded for the following reasons.
Firstly, it is note-worthy that modern technologies almost can instead of salient features of traditional libraries. Nowadays, many scientific studies have shown that although it is invisible, the development trend of electronic products has given users swiff and convenient access to various entertainment modes. As a result, people can save their spare time on going to the libraries. Therefore, it will be a grave mistake to overlook the fact that the increasing popularity of the Internet is accompanied by the loss of traditional culture of libraries. For example, according to the survey conducted by BBC News, in many metropolises, people prefer to stay at home and scroll the Internet rather than go to libraries because of the inconvenience of Covid-19.
Secondly, the counter-argument raised by opponents to this is that libraries are one of contributive factors to create a traditional beauty, so local governments should preserve these libraries. This argument could be true to some extent; however, it is incomplete. What they fail to take into account is the fact that there are many libraries built in high schools and universities, which necessarily plays an instrument in supplying knowledge for students and preserves cultural traditions. According to researches, maintaining public libraries wastes a lot of money, which can affect the tight budget of nations. Therefore, authorities should promote development of school libraries and advanced technologies replacing public libraries.
In conclusion, the growing pervasiveness of computer technology is replacing public libraries, which has chronic effects on users as mentioned above.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2021-10-11 | maiphuong0610 | 84 | view |
| 2021-10-11 | maiphuong0610 | 89 | view |
| 2021-07-10 | nhile1001 | 92 | view |
- The graph shows the percentage of households with different kinds of technology in the UK from 1997 to 2001 89
- Some people argue that holding sporting events is beneficial to countries development However other people hold the opposite opinion Discuss both views and give your own opinion 67
- Some people argue that holding sporting events is beneficial to countries development However other people hold the opposite opinion Discuss both views and give your own opinion 78
- The charts below shows the percentage of electricity used by different sectors in Eastern Australia in 2007 and 2010 89
- Some people argue that holding sporting events is beneficial to countries development However other people hold the opposite opinion Discuss both views and give your own opinion 89
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 151, Rule ID: MANY_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun hold seems to be countable; consider using: 'many holds'.
Suggestion: many holds
...public libraries’ functions. Therefore, many hold a belief that governments and authoriti...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 360, Rule ID: ON_GOING[1]
Message: Did you mean 'ongoing'?
Suggestion: ongoing
...esult, people can save their spare time on going to the libraries. Therefore, it will be...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, firstly, however, if, look, second, secondly, so, therefore, for example, in conclusion, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 13.1623246493 99% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 7.85571142285 102% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 10.4138276553 58% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 9.0 7.30460921844 123% => OK
Pronoun: 17.0 24.0651302605 71% => OK
Preposition: 43.0 41.998997996 102% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 8.3376753507 84% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1707.0 1615.20841683 106% => OK
No of words: 299.0 315.596192385 95% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.70903010033 5.12529762239 111% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.1583189471 4.20363070211 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.30403299652 2.80592935109 118% => OK
Unique words: 181.0 176.041082164 103% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.605351170569 0.561755894193 108% => OK
syllable_count: 522.0 506.74238477 103% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 5.43587174349 92% => OK
Article: 3.0 2.52805611222 119% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.10420841683 48% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.76152304609 126% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 16.0721442886 87% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 20.2975951904 103% => OK
Sentence length SD: 48.2994485962 49.4020404114 98% => OK
Chars per sentence: 121.928571429 106.682146367 114% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.3571428571 20.7667163134 103% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.0 7.06120827912 113% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.01903807615 40% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.67935871743 104% => 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: 0.205681222935 0.244688304435 84% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0714841730013 0.084324248473 85% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0583934671001 0.0667982634062 87% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.131670411222 0.151304729494 87% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.060113426443 0.056905535591 106% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.1 13.0946893788 123% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.7 50.2224549098 83% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 11.3001002004 112% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.84 12.4159519038 128% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.91 8.58950901804 115% => OK
difficult_words: 99.0 78.4519038076 126% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 9.78957915832 92% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.1190380762 103% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.7795591182 83% => 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.