Communication is less between family members of late. Do you agree or disagree?
To what extent do you agree?
Over the past decades, the weakened communication among members in a typical family has translated to an impediment on societal development. It is widely believed that such seismic shift in family communication is a corollary of the advancement of technology and economy. The aim of this essay is set to explore how the reasons derived from these two spheres hinder the communication.
To begin with, it is intuitively obvious that the economic growth is perceived as a hindrance of communication, in particular to late family members. In fact, with the augmented workload accompanied with national prosperity, parents often have to dedicate more time to their rituals, resulting a shortfall of communication with family members. For instance, recent empirical research from the Family Planning Committee ascertained that the average hours working parents spent on communicating with children have been halved over the previous decade. Seen in this light, the lengthened working hours undermine the family bonding by lessening the opportunity of communication.
Meanwhile, another pivotal factor to remember is that the technological derivatives tend to impede communications in families. What this means is the cell phone has a high tendency to stray our late family members from a valuable dinner that drives regular communication. Evidently, having interviewed by the Social Harmony Association, 70% children admitted that they remain engrossed in the screen on having a family dinner. Consequently, these late members are unlikely to sustainably communicate with their parents, and thus eventually estrange themselves from family life.
In conclusion, there is undeniable evidence that the economic expansion and burgeoning of the latest technology are impeding the conventional channels that late family member employs to communicate with the senior counterparts. Given such changes are irrevocable, it is predicted that this phenomenon will become a norm in modern families in foreseeable future.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2018-07-20 | RockyGagKy | 78 | view |
| 2018-07-20 | RockyGagKy | 84 | view |
| 2018-07-20 | RockyGagKy | 84 | view |
- The average standard of people's health is likely to be lower in the future than it is now.To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience. 89
- The bar chart below gives information about four countries spending habits of shopping on consumer goods in 2012.Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant. 84
- Doing an enjoyable activity with a child can develop better skills and imagination than reading. To what extent do you agree? Use reasons and specific examples to explain your answer. 89
- Some people think the media television and films negatively affect people s behaviour Others do not think so How do you think the media affects people s behaviour Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer 49
- The table below gives information on consumer spending on different items in five different countries in 2002.Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant. 84
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 175, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ntional channels that late family member employs to communicate with the senior c...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
consequently, if, so, then, thus, while, for instance, in conclusion, in fact, in particular, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 13.1623246493 99% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 1.0 7.85571142285 13% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 10.4138276553 29% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 9.0 7.30460921844 123% => OK
Pronoun: 23.0 24.0651302605 96% => OK
Preposition: 48.0 41.998997996 114% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 8.3376753507 168% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1713.0 1615.20841683 106% => OK
No of words: 299.0 315.596192385 95% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.72909698997 5.12529762239 112% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.1583189471 4.20363070211 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.20747120023 2.80592935109 114% => OK
Unique words: 177.0 176.041082164 101% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.591973244147 0.561755894193 105% => OK
syllable_count: 554.4 506.74238477 109% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.9 1.60771543086 118% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 5.43587174349 74% => OK
Article: 3.0 2.52805611222 119% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.10420841683 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 0.809619238477 124% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.76152304609 126% => 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: 23.0 20.2975951904 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 33.2645839352 49.4020404114 67% => OK
Chars per sentence: 131.769230769 106.682146367 124% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.0 20.7667163134 111% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.23076923077 7.06120827912 117% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 8.67935871743 35% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 3.9879759519 50% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 3.4128256513 234% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.158213813844 0.244688304435 65% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0613506294215 0.084324248473 73% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0376023917297 0.0667982634062 56% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.103676371941 0.151304729494 69% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0236210383963 0.056905535591 42% => 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: 17.1 13.0946893788 131% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 22.75 50.2224549098 45% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 13.0 7.44779559118 175% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.8 11.3001002004 140% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.25 12.4159519038 131% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.53 8.58950901804 123% => OK
difficult_words: 109.0 78.4519038076 139% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 9.78957915832 133% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.1190380762 111% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 10.7795591182 121% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 78.6516853933 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.0 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.