Some people believe that our ever-increasing use of technology significantly reduces our opportunities for human interaction. Other people believe that technology provides us with new and better ways to communicate and connect with one another.
Write a response in which you discuss which view more closely aligns with your own position and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should address both of the views presented.
We are surrounded by various technological gifts. Without technology, we can’t think of a day. Technology has made our life easier and has bestowed us with numerous blessings. However, they have put some effects on human interaction. The prompt states that according to some people our increasing use of technology has markedly reduced opportunities for human interaction. Other people are against this statement and they claim technology provides us with novel and better ways for communication and connection with others. I agree with the second view mostly and here I have provided three specific cases which shape my position.
First of all, technology has blessed us with numerous amazing gifts which were unthinkable in previous years, even from few years ago. For example, let us consider the case of modern computers. Computers are recent inventions and it has been developed too much within a very short time span. It has provided us numerous ways to communicate with others. EMAIL is one of the most popular examples. Now we don’t need to write letters to others, which take a quite lot of time for sending and receiving. We can just mail others within a few seconds. This case does not reduce opportunities for human interaction rather it depends on computer as a bridge between two persons.
Secondly, now a day, we don’t need to travel by walking for miles to visit others and connect with them. Technology has provided us numerous ways to communicate with others easily. Now we can easily take a transport and reach to our desired place within a very short time. It has reduced our efforts and has made our life so much easy. We can easily communicate with others, interact with them, and take part in various festivals and cultural programs in a very easy way. Technology has not reduced the opportunities for human interaction in this case, rather has enabled to grow the opportunity. So, in this case, the first view does not seem congruent.
Last, but not least, it is true that technology has engulfed us with so many amazing gifts, at the same time, it is also true that we are being robotic day by day. We depend on technologies too much and our life has been too much mechanized. Each and every aspects of our life seem to be dictated by technologies too much. We are spending now more time on phone in communicating with others rather to meet with others physically. Human interaction has been reduced a bit but it is not true that human interaction is being faded and it has turn into an ephemeral form.
In conclusion, it can be said that, in this world there is nothing which has only positive sides - there is no unmixed blessings in this world. Technology is not different from this. Some aspects of technology have really enabled us to interact with others very easily, but at the same time, it has also made our life too much mechanical and reduced physical interaction.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 454, Rule ID: A_RB_NN[1]
Message: You used an adverb ('quite') instead an adjective, or a noun ('lot') instead of another adjective.
... to write letters to others, which take a quite lot of time for sending and receiving. We c...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 540, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Use past participle here: 'turned'.
Suggestion: turned
...n interaction is being faded and it has turn into an ephemeral form. In conclusio...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, really, second, secondly, so, for example, in conclusion, first of all, it is true
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 19.5258426966 108% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 12.4196629213 56% => OK
Conjunction : 19.0 14.8657303371 128% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 11.3162921348 80% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 55.0 33.0505617978 166% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 62.0 58.6224719101 106% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 12.9106741573 85% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2420.0 2235.4752809 108% => OK
No of words: 500.0 442.535393258 113% => OK
Chars per words: 4.84 5.05705443957 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.72870804502 4.55969084622 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.67979218044 2.79657885939 96% => OK
Unique words: 232.0 215.323595506 108% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.464 0.4932671777 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 770.4 704.065955056 109% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59117977528 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 16.0 6.24550561798 256% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 2.0 4.99550561798 40% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 3.10617977528 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 3.0 1.77640449438 169% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.38483146067 114% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 30.0 20.2370786517 148% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 23.0359550562 69% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 40.1262036856 60.3974514979 66% => OK
Chars per sentence: 80.6666666667 118.986275619 68% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.6666666667 23.4991977007 71% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.76666666667 5.21951772744 72% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 14.0 10.2758426966 136% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 5.13820224719 39% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 14.0 4.83258426966 290% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.412511709556 0.243740707755 169% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.118196289421 0.0831039109588 142% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.100990049047 0.0758088955206 133% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.260390281475 0.150359130593 173% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.1016207188 0.0667264976115 152% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 9.7 14.1392134831 69% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 63.7 48.8420337079 130% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.4 12.1743820225 69% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.5 12.1639044944 86% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.52 8.38706741573 90% => OK
difficult_words: 98.0 100.480337079 98% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 11.8971910112 63% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 11.2143820225 75% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.7820224719 68% => The average readability is low. Need to imporve the language.
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.