Communication is less between family members of late. Do you agree or disagree?
To what extent do you agree?
Over the past decades, the declined intimacy among members in a typical family has translated to an impediment on societal development. it is widely believed that such seismic shift in family communication was a corollary of the advancement of technology and economy. The aim of this essay is set to explore the reasons derived from these two spheres.
To begin with, it is intuitively obvious that the economic growth is perceived as a hindrance of family communication, in particular to late family members. In fact, with the augmented workload accompanied with prosperity, parents who are also the major workforce of the society often have to dedicate more time to their rituals, resulting a shortfall of opportunity to stay with family members. For instance, recent empirical research from the Labour Committee ascertained that the average working hours have doubled over the previous decade. Seen in this light, the prosperity is likely to weaken the effort spent on maintaining the bonding among family members by lengthening the working hours.
Meanwhile, another pivotal factor to remember is that junior members of a family are highly susceptible to the technological derivatives impeding communications. What this means is the cell phone connecting the Internet has a high tendency to stray our descendents from a valueable family dinner driving communication. Evidently, having interviewed by the Social Harmony Association, 70% children admitted that, rather than enjoying a fruitful communication with parents, they remain engrossed to the screen on having a family dinner. Consequently, distracting by these electronic devices, regular family communication is unlikely to be sustainable between parents and children, and late members eventually estrange themselves from family life.
In conclusion, there is undeniable evidence that the economic development and burgeoning of smartphone are impeding the communication channels within an ordinary family, especially with the youth. Given such changes are irrevocable, it is predicted that this phenomenon of lessened communication in modern families will become a norm in foreseeable future.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2018-07-20 | RockyGagKy | 78 | view |
| 2018-07-20 | RockyGagKy | 84 | view |
| 2018-07-20 | RockyGagKy | 84 | view |
- The graph below shows information on employment rates across 6 countries in 1995 and 2005.Summarise the information by choosing and describe the main idea, and make comparisons where appropriate. 73
- The charts below show the percentage of food budget the average family spent on restaurant meals in different years. The graph shows the number of meals eaten in fast food restaurants and sit-down restaurants.Write a report for a university lecturer descr 78
- Some people think that companies and private individuals should pay to clean up the pollution that they produce, not the government. To what extent do you agree or disagree? 73
- The graph below shows information on employment rates across 6 countries in 1995 and 2005.Summarise the information by choosing and describe the main idea, and make comparisons where appropriate. 78
- In some countries, using the internet in school is getting popular. Is it positive or negative development?Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience. 78
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 137, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: It
... an impediment on societal development. it is widely believed that such seismic sh...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, consequently, if, so, then, while, for instance, in conclusion, in fact, in particular, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 13.1623246493 122% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 1.0 7.85571142285 13% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 10.4138276553 38% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 8.0 7.30460921844 110% => OK
Pronoun: 20.0 24.0651302605 83% => OK
Preposition: 53.0 41.998997996 126% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 8.3376753507 180% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1841.0 1615.20841683 114% => OK
No of words: 323.0 315.596192385 102% => OK
Chars per words: 5.69969040248 5.12529762239 111% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.23936324884 4.20363070211 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.17313447706 2.80592935109 113% => OK
Unique words: 197.0 176.041082164 112% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.609907120743 0.561755894193 109% => OK
syllable_count: 596.7 506.74238477 118% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.60771543086 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 5.43587174349 74% => OK
Article: 3.0 2.52805611222 119% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.10420841683 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 0.809619238477 124% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.76152304609 126% => 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: 24.0 20.2975951904 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 39.4044421249 49.4020404114 80% => OK
Chars per sentence: 141.615384615 106.682146367 133% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.8461538462 20.7667163134 120% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.23076923077 7.06120827912 117% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 8.67935871743 23% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 3.9879759519 75% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 3.4128256513 234% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.150570347622 0.244688304435 62% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.054433585743 0.084324248473 65% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0395937580411 0.0667982634062 59% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0884317915854 0.151304729494 58% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0345526769043 0.056905535591 61% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.8 13.0946893788 136% => 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: 16.08 12.4159519038 130% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.64 8.58950901804 124% => OK
difficult_words: 119.0 78.4519038076 152% => 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: 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.