technology and tradition
Nowadays, technological advances and their rapid and wide applications are having a significant impact on a nation’s traditional skills and ways of life. Some argue that such impact is so extraordinary that it would make conventional skills and life styles obsolete. However, I believe they would continue to thrive by providing alternatives to modern ways of life, and innovative ideas for modern technologies.
First of all, traditional skills and ways of life are becoming an alternative solution to the problems caused by “mainstreamed” ways of life which are greatly influenced by modern technologies. For instance, a cozy restaurant where traditional, home-brewed beer is served, offers another experience to people who are bored with branded beers that have the same flavor and come out of mass production with new technologies. It is in such a venue where traditional skills are preserved, people become relaxed and educated. Providing diversity and thus enriching modern ways of life, such traditional skills and ways of life would continue to have their place.
Furthermore, conventional skills provide innovative ideas to the development of modern technologies. For example, sparkled by how the word “Love” is traditionally knitted into a sweater by some ethnic minority women in some parts of Asia, some business managers from textile industry have developed some production lines by applying the traditional skills to Computer-Aided Designs (CAD). The products have boosted the companies’ sales which in turn have increased their investment in preserving traditional skills for further developing their technologies.
To conclude, traditional skills and life styles are increasingly becoming a useful alternative to the homogeneity brought by global applications of modern technologies. However, the evolution of technologies is a selection process, whereby some would become obsolete, but there is no doubt that some would thrive when their roles are appreciated.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-11-11 | vuhongminh | 61 | view |
| 2024-11-06 | thuyan187 | 11 | view |
| 2024-09-10 | phamkhuyen | 61 | view |
| 2024-08-11 | MEBC Class | 61 | view |
| 2024-08-04 | Ahmad_off | 78 | view |
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, furthermore, however, if, so, thus, as for, as to, for example, for instance, no doubt, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 13.1623246493 99% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 7.85571142285 64% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 10.4138276553 115% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 7.30460921844 137% => OK
Pronoun: 13.0 24.0651302605 54% => OK
Preposition: 37.0 41.998997996 88% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 8.3376753507 108% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1718.0 1615.20841683 106% => OK
No of words: 297.0 315.596192385 94% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.78451178451 5.12529762239 113% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.15134772569 4.20363070211 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.46534171871 2.80592935109 124% => OK
Unique words: 155.0 176.041082164 88% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.521885521886 0.561755894193 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 548.1 506.74238477 108% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.60771543086 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 5.43587174349 37% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.384769539078 0% => OK
Article: 3.0 2.52805611222 119% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.10420841683 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 0.809619238477 247% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 1.0 4.76152304609 21% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 16.0721442886 75% => 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: 24.0 20.2975951904 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 54.3973932178 49.4020404114 110% => OK
Chars per sentence: 143.166666667 106.682146367 134% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.75 20.7667163134 119% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.33333333333 7.06120827912 132% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.67935871743 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 3.9879759519 100% => OK
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: 0.191058038454 0.244688304435 78% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0799202083153 0.084324248473 95% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0724819764367 0.0667982634062 109% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.129217325168 0.151304729494 85% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0198898443798 0.056905535591 35% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 18.2 13.0946893788 139% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 30.2 50.2224549098 60% => OK
smog_index: 13.0 7.44779559118 175% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.0 11.3001002004 133% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.54 12.4159519038 133% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.29 8.58950901804 108% => OK
difficult_words: 84.0 78.4519038076 107% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 9.78957915832 133% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 10.1190380762 115% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 10.7795591182 121% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 73.0337078652 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 6.5 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.