In this modern age of technology, the preferred mode of communication among teenagers has shifted significantly. While some argue that many teenagers nowadays prefer socializing online to meeting in person, I am inclined to partly agree with this assertion. It is undeniable that digital interactions offer unparalleled convenience and accessibility, but fostering face-to-face connections remains equally vital for adolescents' social and emotional development.
There is no doubt that online socializing has gained immense popularity among teenagers due to its convenience and accessibility. Through social media platforms and instant messaging apps, young individuals can effortlessly connect with friends from different corners of the world. For instance, I have friends from various countries whom I interact with regularly through online platforms. Such virtual connections transcend geographical boundaries and enable us to share experiences and support each other, irrespective of the physical distance that separates us.
Despite the benefits of online socializing, the significance of in-person interactions should not be underestimated. Building meaningful relationships requires genuine human connection that cannot be replicated through screens. Face-to-face communication allows us to read non-verbal cues, sense emotions, and develop empathy, which are essential skills in understanding others and forming deep bonds. For example, during a school project, my group faced conflicts that were resolved only when we met in person, as we could better comprehend each other's perspectives and emotions.
In conclusion, while it is true that many teenagers find online socializing appealing due to its ease and global reach, we must strike a balance between virtual interactions and in-person meetings. Encouraging teenagers to participate in local community events, promoting group activities in schools, and involving parents in guiding their social media usage can help nurture meaningful relationships and emotional growth in the digital age.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, if, so, while, for example, for instance, in conclusion, no doubt, it is true
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: 6.0 7.85571142285 76% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 10.4138276553 134% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 7.30460921844 137% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 24.0651302605 100% => OK
Preposition: 39.0 41.998997996 93% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 8.3376753507 132% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1774.0 1615.20841683 110% => OK
No of words: 289.0 315.596192385 92% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 6.1384083045 5.12529762239 120% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.12310562562 4.20363070211 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.26631502327 2.80592935109 116% => OK
Unique words: 192.0 176.041082164 109% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.664359861592 0.561755894193 118% => OK
syllable_count: 545.4 506.74238477 108% => 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: 2.0 2.52805611222 79% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.10420841683 143% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 0.809619238477 371% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 5.0 4.76152304609 105% => 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: 22.0 20.2975951904 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 40.575009069 49.4020404114 82% => OK
Chars per sentence: 136.461538462 106.682146367 128% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.2307692308 20.7667163134 107% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.30769230769 7.06120827912 89% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => 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: 2.0 3.4128256513 59% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.147319889564 0.244688304435 60% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0557885807048 0.084324248473 66% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0602718525833 0.0667982634062 90% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0924297912252 0.151304729494 61% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.046755937063 0.056905535591 82% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 18.6 13.0946893788 142% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 23.77 50.2224549098 47% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 13.0 7.44779559118 175% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.4 11.3001002004 136% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 18.63 12.4159519038 150% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.63 8.58950901804 124% => OK
difficult_words: 108.0 78.4519038076 138% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 9.78957915832 138% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.1190380762 107% => OK
text_standard: 19.0 10.7795591182 176% => 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.