In spite of the utilitarian applications that mobile phones have brought to human beings, many believe that using these electronic devices is akin to smoking due to its deleterious effects on society. Consequently, some argue that there should be a prohibition on public usage of smartphones. In my opinion, mobile phone usage should be restricted in public, not completely banned.
To commence with, proponents of this viewpoint assert that it is essential to impose a ban on the use of smartphones in public as it poses detrimental threats to people’s health, which bears resemblance to smoking cigarettes. As chronic smoking damages people’s lungs due to the presence of nicotine and other poisonous substances contained in cigarettes, excessive contact with smartphone displays can cause the eyes to be strained and severely sore, which gradually depletes people’s eyesight, or even leads to permanent blindness. By way of illustration, several surveys conducted by Taiwanese researchers have indicated that the incidence of myopia and retinal detachment among the island’s teenage population is drastically increasing and many ascribe this phenomenon to the increasing hours spent on phones. Due to the detriments resulting from the immoderate use of cellular phones, many contend that a strict forbiddance on smartphones, at least in public places, could alleviate the situation.
With that being said, I affirm that smartphone usage ought to only be limited, not utterly disallowed. This can be justified by the fact that cellular phones have been an indispensable part of millions of people’s lives. For instance, in many parts of the world, citizens have shifted from traditional to modern payment owing to several digital banks, which is a more beneficial and less time-consuming method. Should a complete ban on mobile phones in public be enacted, this promulgation will cause numerous problems for people, especially those residing in urban areas, and elevate the risk of pickpocketing. Moreover, in several emergencies such as house fires or traffic accidents, having a phone in hand enables people to call rescue services, thus ensuring victims’ lives. However, it is crucial that people limit the amount of time spent on phones in order to maintain a healthy lifestyle, as well as consolidating relationships between individuals thanks to physical contact and real-life conversations with others.
In conclusion, from my perspective, while both smoking and using phones in public areas can occasion several problems, it is imprudent to prohibit the latter. In lieu, it is more rational that people reduce their screen time daily for various health reasons.
- People are consuming more and more sugar based drinks Why What can be done to reduce sugary drink consumption 89
- Spoken communication is more powerful than written communication To what extent do you agree or disagree 84
- The graph below shows the consumption of fish and some different kinds of meat in a European country between 1979 and 2004 Summarize the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant 67
- Nowadays more and more younger people need to compete with older people for the same jobs What problems does this cause What would you suggest as a solution 89
- Problems with environmental pollution have become so serious that many countries are trying to solve these problems Suggest possible solutions and give your opinion 89
Transition Words or Phrases used:
consequently, however, if, moreover, so, thus, well, while, at least, for instance, in conclusion, such as, as well as, in my opinion, in spite of
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 13.1623246493 114% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 7.85571142285 115% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 10.4138276553 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 7.30460921844 192% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 24.0651302605 112% => OK
Preposition: 66.0 41.998997996 157% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 8.3376753507 156% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2281.0 1615.20841683 141% => OK
No of words: 414.0 315.596192385 131% => OK
Chars per words: 5.50966183575 5.12529762239 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.51076378781 4.20363070211 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.04049101922 2.80592935109 108% => OK
Unique words: 244.0 176.041082164 139% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.589371980676 0.561755894193 105% => OK
syllable_count: 706.5 506.74238477 139% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 5.43587174349 110% => OK
Article: 0.0 2.52805611222 0% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.10420841683 143% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 0.809619238477 247% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 11.0 4.76152304609 231% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 16.0721442886 93% => OK
Sentence length: 27.0 20.2975951904 133% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 67.2760152077 49.4020404114 136% => OK
Chars per sentence: 152.066666667 106.682146367 143% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.6 20.7667163134 133% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.73333333333 7.06120827912 138% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.67935871743 58% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 3.9879759519 201% => Less 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: 0.220362503486 0.244688304435 90% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0755550069473 0.084324248473 90% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0638684285093 0.0667982634062 96% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.142541061602 0.151304729494 94% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0583752641688 0.056905535591 103% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 18.3 13.0946893788 140% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 35.61 50.2224549098 71% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.44779559118 150% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.0 11.3001002004 133% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.97 12.4159519038 121% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.47 8.58950901804 122% => OK
difficult_words: 144.0 78.4519038076 184% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 9.78957915832 123% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.8 10.1190380762 126% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 10.7795591182 139% => 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.