Some believe that modern technology is increasing the gap between rich and poor people, while others disagree. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.
Since the Internet bubble during the late 1990s, the world has entered the era of unprecedented technological advancement, leading to the mounting debate on the gulf between the affluent and the impoverished. Although the role of technology in alleviating the hardship of poor people is undeniable, I am inclined to the view that it has been, concurrently, widening the income chasm.
Advocates of technology often argue that such development has improved the living condition of the needy at a significantly fast pace. Admittedly, technological products and services have become ever-cheaper, so now even low-income people can possess mobile devices and, consequently, have access to the Internet. With many free courses offered online covering a wide range of topics of academic and practical knowledge, they can gain an alternative education without attending school and paying fees, which they may be unable to afford. Besides the all-important access to education, newly developed technology can aid inhabitants of remote, deprived areas to have clean water, improve farming techniques and enjoy sustainable energy, such as solar energy and hydropower.
Notwithstanding the merits of modern technology in helping people escape poverty, I believe that it has also been, simultaneously, expanding the inequality gap. When technology develops, it has replaced many jobs heretofore reserved for the middle- and low-income workers with robots and artificial intelligence, thereby increasing the level of unemployment, as seen in Southern Europe recently, and social unrest. Furthermore, technology-driven economies usually favour a small group of successful individuals by amplifying their talent and luck. Therefore, while developing is occurring and the total incomes of such countries are growing, high-tech entrepreneurs, such as the founders of great companies like Facebook, Google or Alibaba, are seen to profit disproportionately compared with the remainder.
In conclusion, I am for the idea that modern developments in technology, albeit beneficial to low-income people, have made the rich relatively richer and the poor, poorer.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-12-10 | Rasadini De SIlva | 84 | view |
| 2019-11-03 | oxfordpro111 | 61 | view |
| 2019-02-28 | Nirav pandit | 61 | view |
| 2018-11-13 | buihaianhmrbi | 96 | view |
| 2018-11-12 | drtruong92 | 78 | view |
- Maintaining public libraries is a waste of money since computer technology is now replacing their functions. To what extent do you agree or disagree? 84
- Some believe that modern technology is increasing the gap between rich and poor people, while others disagree. Discuss both views and give your own opinion. 73
- Some believe that modern technology is increasing the gap between rich and poor people, while others disagree. Discuss both views and give your own opinion. 89
- Living in a country where you have to speak a foreign language can cause serious social problems, as well as practical problems.To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement? 84
- Living in a country where you have to speak a foreign language can cause serious social problems, as well as practical problems.To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement? 84
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, besides, consequently, furthermore, if, may, so, therefore, while, as to, in conclusion, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 7.0 13.1623246493 53% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 7.85571142285 51% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 10.4138276553 134% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 7.30460921844 82% => OK
Pronoun: 13.0 24.0651302605 54% => OK
Preposition: 38.0 41.998997996 90% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 8.3376753507 84% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1834.0 1615.20841683 114% => OK
No of words: 315.0 315.596192385 100% => OK
Chars per words: 5.82222222222 5.12529762239 114% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.21286593061 4.20363070211 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.33871975983 2.80592935109 119% => OK
Unique words: 212.0 176.041082164 120% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.673015873016 0.561755894193 120% => OK
syllable_count: 587.7 506.74238477 116% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.9 1.60771543086 118% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 5.43587174349 92% => OK
Article: 1.0 2.52805611222 40% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.10420841683 238% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 0.809619238477 124% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.76152304609 84% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 11.0 16.0721442886 68% => 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: 28.0 20.2975951904 138% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 42.7701912107 49.4020404114 87% => OK
Chars per sentence: 166.727272727 106.682146367 156% => OK
Words per sentence: 28.6363636364 20.7667163134 138% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.27272727273 7.06120827912 131% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.67935871743 81% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 3.9879759519 50% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.142094939533 0.244688304435 58% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0518424538638 0.084324248473 61% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0408588549698 0.0667982634062 61% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0885511853669 0.151304729494 59% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0331886856674 0.056905535591 58% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 20.3 13.0946893788 155% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 17.68 50.2224549098 35% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 14.6 7.44779559118 196% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 17.8 11.3001002004 158% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 17.07 12.4159519038 137% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 11.34 8.58950901804 132% => OK
difficult_words: 126.0 78.4519038076 161% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 16.5 9.78957915832 169% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.2 10.1190380762 130% => OK
text_standard: 18.0 10.7795591182 167% => 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.