Few individuals perceive that development of science and technology has shaped a person as a more communal; however, counter-argues claim that It works in reverse manner. The argument consist of dual perspectives regarding the effect of technology on individuals. Prior to my stance, both the views are discussed further.
Discussing the prior view, the supporters forward that technology make written and spoken communication between people anytime, anywhere. For example, Facebook - which is a social networking site - connects more than 1 billion people across the globe and people can make friendship with each other and exchange their thoughts with same-minded people. In addition, they also believe that Internet provide a platform for people to discuss local issues as well as international issues. The reason is that, In some developing country internet helps to spread awareness regarding to various issues.
On the flip side, the latter opinion promotes its own arguments. to commence with, people cut off from immediate surrounding due to shifting priority from face-to-face communication to texting communication. In other words, people prefers texting each other instead of physical gatherings. Beside this, with the help of technology Anonymity and the absence of face-to-face interaction can promote uncivil or even aggressive style of communication. As an example, research of Harvard University found that during online interaction, communal behavior of people is different from their normal behavior.
To sum up the discussion and offer my position, I would clearly support the former view. Technology helps people to improve their communication skills. Although, people cut off from immediate surrounding, but with technology people can connect with their friends and loved ones at any time.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 65, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: To
...ter opinion promotes its own arguments. to commence with, people cut off from imme...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, however, if, regarding, so, well, for example, in addition, as well as, in other words, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 4.0 13.1623246493 30% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 7.85571142285 51% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 10.4138276553 86% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 7.30460921844 96% => OK
Pronoun: 17.0 24.0651302605 71% => OK
Preposition: 46.0 41.998997996 110% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 8.3376753507 168% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1541.0 1615.20841683 95% => OK
No of words: 271.0 315.596192385 86% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.68634686347 5.12529762239 111% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.05734859645 4.20363070211 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.03105972482 2.80592935109 108% => OK
Unique words: 175.0 176.041082164 99% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.645756457565 0.561755894193 115% => OK
syllable_count: 473.4 506.74238477 93% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 5.43587174349 37% => OK
Article: 4.0 2.52805611222 158% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.10420841683 48% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 0.809619238477 124% => OK
Preposition: 9.0 4.76152304609 189% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 16.0721442886 93% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 20.2975951904 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 43.5658377886 49.4020404114 88% => OK
Chars per sentence: 102.733333333 106.682146367 96% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.0666666667 20.7667163134 87% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.2 7.06120827912 102% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.67935871743 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 3.9879759519 75% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 3.4128256513 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.245815315642 0.244688304435 100% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0811733593139 0.084324248473 96% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.053201087658 0.0667982634062 80% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.145326324452 0.151304729494 96% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0504111434214 0.056905535591 89% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.4 13.0946893788 110% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 44.75 50.2224549098 89% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 11.3001002004 102% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.43 12.4159519038 124% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.54 8.58950901804 111% => OK
difficult_words: 86.0 78.4519038076 110% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 9.78957915832 123% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.1190380762 91% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 10.7795591182 111% => 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.