THE USE OF ELECTRONIC MEDIA HAS A NEGATIVE EFFECT ON PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PEOPLE. TO WHAT EXTENT DO YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THE STATEMENT?
The development of electronic media has opened another door for people to interact each other more effectively in this digital world. However, there are some argument that this invention could harm the way human communicate. I partly agree with the idea for the following reasons.
Human being benefits a lot form a better connection thanks to the internet and technology devices. Firstly, for those who are living a far distance from their family and friends can use some chat tools to keep in touch with their beloved ones. Nowadays, many companies are releasing such a communicating application for users to use freely. This makes the distance become not a big deal anymore with variety options such as regular call or video call. Although these tools cannot bring a real feeling of sitting next to each other, it can show the emotions or virtual background to back up for that. Secondly, people could also take advantage of the applications to expand social contact. To be particular, we have some common web like facebook or linkedin to connect us to the world depending on individual reference.
On another hand, there is undeniable that the use of electronic media has some bad sides. The most noticeable effect is to wreck havoc on relationship. The statistics have shown the time focusing on computer of both children and adult are increasing. This lead to the time spent for their loved one becoming fiddle to work or game. In a long run, they hardly can find a common thing to share despite living under the same roof. Last but not least, to catch user’s attention, producers have been releasing so many programs via media channels, Some of them are informative yet some are not very well selected especially for kids. On the age of getting to know the world, kids tend to imitate what they had read and seen. Sometimes they are misbehavior in family or in the community which cause the broken relationship later on.
In conclusion, it is the usage that not the media to blame. If people know how to exploit the valuable function thought all channels, it will be definitely a good way to maintain the connection to one another.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 124, Rule ID: WRECK_HAVOC[1]
Message: Did you mean 'wreak havoc'?
Suggestion: wreak havoc
...sides. The most noticeable effect is to wreck havoc on relationship. The statistics have sh...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, however, if, second, secondly, so, well, in conclusion, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 13.1623246493 106% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 7.85571142285 89% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 10.4138276553 106% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 7.30460921844 82% => OK
Pronoun: 23.0 24.0651302605 96% => OK
Preposition: 48.0 41.998997996 114% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 8.3376753507 132% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1784.0 1615.20841683 110% => OK
No of words: 368.0 315.596192385 117% => OK
Chars per words: 4.84782608696 5.12529762239 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.37987740619 4.20363070211 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.60365795283 2.80592935109 93% => OK
Unique words: 228.0 176.041082164 130% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.619565217391 0.561755894193 110% => OK
syllable_count: 568.8 506.74238477 112% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.60771543086 93% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 5.43587174349 147% => OK
Article: 3.0 2.52805611222 119% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.10420841683 95% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.76152304609 126% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 16.0721442886 124% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 20.2975951904 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 34.8265703164 49.4020404114 70% => OK
Chars per sentence: 89.2 106.682146367 84% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.4 20.7667163134 89% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.5 7.06120827912 64% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.67935871743 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 3.9879759519 176% => OK
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: 0.143378658736 0.244688304435 59% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0426914987834 0.084324248473 51% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0456818348305 0.0667982634062 68% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0876807675076 0.151304729494 58% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0347618756065 0.056905535591 61% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.6 13.0946893788 81% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 61.67 50.2224549098 123% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 11.3001002004 81% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.85 12.4159519038 87% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.31 8.58950901804 97% => OK
difficult_words: 88.0 78.4519038076 112% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 9.78957915832 87% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.1190380762 91% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.7795591182 83% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 84.2696629213 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.5 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.