The range of technology is increasing the gap between the rich and the poor To what extent do you agree Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowldege or experience

Essay topics:

The range of technology is increasing the gap between the rich and the poor. To what extent do you agree?
Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowldege or experience.

The application of new technologies is one of the most important ways of making millionaires such as Bill Gates. However, discussion now centers on whether the technology has also widened the gap between the rich and the poor. My view is that the improper distribution of social wealth, rather than an influx of modern technology, has caused such a social problem.

Firstly, it is obvious that the responsibility falls on the government as the one most capable and likely to solve any social issue and ensure social equality. In order to bridge this wealth gap, the most effective and direct method should be taxation leverage, by which the government can use the rich people’s tax money to subsidise the less fortuante. So, the technology should not become a scapegoat of this issue.

Conversely, modern technologies indeed have provided great opportunities for the impoverished to go from rags to riches. For example, many people have become wealthy by setting up their own commercial websites on the Internet. Compared with tradictional companies that requre large initial inverstment and higher operation cost, the Internet is a cheaper and more accessible platform for ordinary people to make a fortune.

Those who harbour the view that technology has polarised the distribution of welth around the world believe that poor countries are getting poorer due to the lack of creative technologies. Of course, this is a real phenomenon. But paradoxically, the right solution for those nations is just to introduce advanced technologies to imporve social productivity, which is like the age-old chicken-or-egg question.

In summary, modern technology plays a key role in filling the gap between the rich and poor not only for individuals, but for nations as well. In the era of knowledge-based economy, one who is diligent and can capitalise on this knowledge will eventually prevail.

Votes
Average: 8.9 (1 vote)
This essay topic by users
Post date Users Rates Link to Content
2024-02-01 MinyiChu 89 view
Essays by user MinyiChu :

Comments

Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, conversely, first, firstly, however, so, well, for example, in summary, of course, such as

Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 13.1623246493 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 7.85571142285 64% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 10.4138276553 106% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 7.30460921844 123% => OK
Pronoun: 14.0 24.0651302605 58% => OK
Preposition: 36.0 41.998997996 86% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 8.3376753507 120% => OK

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1596.0 1615.20841683 99% => OK
No of words: 302.0 315.596192385 96% => OK
Chars per words: 5.28476821192 5.12529762239 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.1687104957 4.20363070211 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.05131327412 2.80592935109 109% => OK
Unique words: 182.0 176.041082164 103% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.602649006623 0.561755894193 107% => OK
syllable_count: 502.2 506.74238477 99% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK

A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 5.43587174349 74% => OK
Article: 5.0 2.52805611222 198% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.10420841683 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 0.809619238477 247% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 5.0 4.76152304609 105% => OK

Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 16.0721442886 87% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 20.2975951904 103% => OK
Sentence length SD: 46.2843915155 49.4020404114 94% => OK
Chars per sentence: 114.0 106.682146367 107% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.5714285714 20.7667163134 104% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.21428571429 7.06120827912 102% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.38176352705 114% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.67935871743 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 3.9879759519 25% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 3.4128256513 88% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?

Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.154273208353 0.244688304435 63% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0519370706808 0.084324248473 62% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0546852386296 0.0667982634062 82% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0827638444045 0.151304729494 55% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0267230750832 0.056905535591 47% => 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: 14.2 13.0946893788 108% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.7 50.2224549098 83% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.44779559118 150% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 11.3001002004 112% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.34 12.4159519038 107% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.07 8.58950901804 106% => OK
difficult_words: 84.0 78.4519038076 107% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 9.78957915832 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.1190380762 103% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 10.7795591182 121% => 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.