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 and protecting 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 like computers or smartphones has given users swiff and convenient access to various entertainment modes. As a result, people can save a lot of spare time on going out to go 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 like public 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 public libraries are one of contributive factors to create a traditional beauty, so local governments should preserve these public 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 |
- A lot of young people do not know how to manage their money when graduating from high school What do you think are the reasons What can be done to teach them this important skill 67
- Today food travels from thousands of miles from the farm to the consumer Some people say that it would be better for the economy environment if people ate food produced from local farmers Why is this the case Is it a positive development 84
- The table shows the change in the number of cinemas in different regions in a European country between 2004 and 2009 89
- 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 84
- Music has been and will continue to be the universal language of mankind To what extent do you agree or disagree 79
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 267, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...c products like computers or smartphones has given users swiff and convenient acc...
^^
Line 2, column 394, Rule ID: ON_GOING[1]
Message: Did you mean 'ongoing'?
Suggestion: ongoing
...lt, people can save a lot of spare time on going out to go to the libraries. Therefore, ...
^^^^^^^^
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 : 8.0 10.4138276553 77% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 7.30460921844 123% => OK
Pronoun: 16.0 24.0651302605 66% => OK
Preposition: 47.0 41.998997996 112% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 8.3376753507 84% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1774.0 1615.20841683 110% => OK
No of words: 313.0 315.596192385 99% => OK
Chars per words: 5.66773162939 5.12529762239 111% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.20616286096 4.20363070211 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.30134150922 2.80592935109 118% => OK
Unique words: 185.0 176.041082164 105% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.591054313099 0.561755894193 105% => OK
syllable_count: 544.5 506.74238477 107% => 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: 22.0 20.2975951904 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 51.1195078383 49.4020404114 103% => OK
Chars per sentence: 126.714285714 106.682146367 119% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.3571428571 20.7667163134 108% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.0 7.06120827912 113% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.01903807615 60% => 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: 0.21211180647 0.244688304435 87% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0756424072825 0.084324248473 90% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0573083497823 0.0667982634062 86% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.13830961747 0.151304729494 91% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0618353506676 0.056905535591 109% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.5 13.0946893788 126% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 40.69 50.2224549098 81% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.1 11.3001002004 116% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.9 12.4159519038 128% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.82 8.58950901804 114% => OK
difficult_words: 101.0 78.4519038076 129% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 9.78957915832 123% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.1190380762 107% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 10.7795591182 102% => 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.