Some people believe that having a conversation on a mobile phone in a public or crowded place should be banned. Others feel that we should be able to talk wherever we like. Discuss both views and give your opinion.
Currently there is a contentious argument over banning of conversation on a mobile phone in a public or crowded place. While some people believe that loud conversations in public places can be a constant nuisance for the people relaxing in the vicinity, however, others believe that it is a violation of their right for freedom of speech and movement. In this essay I will discuss both the views and give my opinion.
Beyond any qualms there are a myriads of logical rationales that prove that speaking in a high pitch voice on a mobile phone in public places could be a source of anguish amidst the people sitting in the vicinity. It can disturb the mental peace and lead to disruption of the personal space of the people sitting nearby. For example, loud phone chit chat can disturb the relaxation time of a senior citizen or might end up annoying a mother whose baby has just fallen asleep. Therefore, banning mobile conversations in outpatient waiting area and some other public places should be a mandate condition.
On the contrary, others believe that complete ban on conversations in public places is not appropriate. Our constitution gives us the right for freedom of speech and movement. Such laws are practically difficult to follow as one might end up missing some important phone call regarding an emergency situation such as health deterioration of a family member or an important interview call. Therefore, it is impractical to impose such stringent rules regarding banning speaking in communal areas.
In conclusion, I believe that banning mobile chats in public places is an impractical approach. Instead signboards mentioning to remain polite and not converse loudly in certain public places such as hospitals where it is mandatory can be done. However, it is impractical to put a complete ban on conversing on mobile phone in other public places such as airports and bus stand. Would such a ban be followed by the public? Still remains a question.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-12-28 | Anupama Barooah | 73 | view |
| 2020-11-05 | AKNIC | 61 | view |
| 2020-10-20 | ankita.hpgdc | 73 | view |
- As people live longer and longer the idea of cloning human beings in order to provide spare parts is becoming a reality The idea horrifies most people yet it is no longer mere science fiction To what extent do you agree with such a procedure Have you any 81
- The use of social media is replacing face to face interaction among many people in society Do you think the advantages outweigh the disadvantages 73
- Some people say that advertising encourages us to buy things that we really do not need Others say that advertisements tell us about new products that may improve our lives Which viewpoint do you agree with Give reasons for your answer and include any rel 73
- In many countries very few young people read newspapers or follow the news on TV What do you think are the causes of this What solutions can you suggest Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience 61
- Some people believe that having a conversation on a mobile phone in a public or crowded place should be banned Others feel that we should be able to talk wherever we like Discuss both views and give your opinion 73
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 29, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[1]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'a myriad' or simply 'myriads'?
Suggestion: a myriad; myriads
...y opinion. Beyond any qualms there are a myriads of logical rationales that prove that s...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 96, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Instead,
...blic places is an impractical approach. Instead signboards mentioning to remain polite ...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
however, if, regarding, so, still, therefore, while, for example, in conclusion, such as, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 13.1623246493 106% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 7.85571142285 127% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 10.4138276553 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 7.30460921844 110% => OK
Pronoun: 18.0 24.0651302605 75% => OK
Preposition: 42.0 41.998997996 100% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 8.3376753507 156% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1643.0 1615.20841683 102% => OK
No of words: 329.0 315.596192385 104% => OK
Chars per words: 4.99392097264 5.12529762239 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.25891501996 4.20363070211 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.8142581225 2.80592935109 100% => OK
Unique words: 169.0 176.041082164 96% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.51367781155 0.561755894193 91% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 521.1 506.74238477 103% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.60771543086 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 5.43587174349 92% => OK
Article: 0.0 2.52805611222 0% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.10420841683 48% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.76152304609 84% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 16.0721442886 100% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 20.2975951904 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 57.870005184 49.4020404114 117% => OK
Chars per sentence: 102.6875 106.682146367 96% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.5625 20.7667163134 99% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.5625 7.06120827912 93% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.01903807615 40% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 8.67935871743 35% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 3.9879759519 226% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 3.4128256513 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.363690311662 0.244688304435 149% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.128675246982 0.084324248473 153% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0937037322859 0.0667982634062 140% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.234652775225 0.151304729494 155% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0867366280077 0.056905535591 152% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.4 13.0946893788 95% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 50.2224549098 102% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 11.3001002004 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.66 12.4159519038 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.47 8.58950901804 99% => OK
difficult_words: 80.0 78.4519038076 102% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 9.78957915832 138% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.1190380762 99% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 10.7795591182 111% => 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.