The use of social media is replacing face-to-face interaction among many people in society. Do you think the advantages outweigh the disadvantages?
Nowadays, it is increasingly common to witness people using social media in place of real-life interactions. While this trend can be advantageous for international networking, I believe the downsides of social connections and exposure to fraud are much more significant.
The foremost drawback of reduced in-person dialogue is the detrimental impact on interpersonal relationships. As people go online more often, their engagement in face-to-face conversations with others in their immediate surroundings diminishes significantly, leading to a decrease in the frequency of intimate conversations that foster emotional connection. Consequently, people may be unable to provide essential support when their friends or family members suffer from emotional or psychological difficulties.
In addition, there is the risk of scams associated with the use of online communication in place of traditional physical interactions. It is because cyber-criminals can easily conceal their identity and entice users to provide them with personal details in online conversations. In Vietnam, thousands of cases of online fraud were reported last year with victims unknowingly sending photos of their credit cards over Facebook chat to hackers disguised as bank tellers. Subsequently, their bank accounts were then hacked and all the money was instantly transferred to the criminals’ offshore accounts which are nearly impossible to trace.
However, I admit that communication on social sites such as Twitter or Facebook has fostered cross-border connections that would otherwise not be possible. More specifically, the inexpensive and convenient platforms that these sites offer allow people from different countries to interact more freely and frequently, rather than people only associating with their contemporaries locally. In fact, a number of activities including cultural exchange programs are rooted in these frequent interactions, resulting in enhanced mutual understanding at both individual and global levels.
In conclusion, although the prevalence of communication through social media can contribute to the global community, I am of the opinion that it is rather disadvantageous given the consequences of interpersonal bonds and increased cybercrime. That is why it is advisable that people should limit the use of social media to prioritize and enjoy quality time with those around them.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-02-07 | Nina Tsarevich | 56 | view |
| 2024-02-07 | Nina Tsarevich | 61 | view |
| 2023-09-05 | Phuong1810 | 89 | view |
| 2023-08-31 | myhuyenueh94 | 78 | view |
| 2023-08-07 | nhinhan | 67 | view |
- Should Men and Women be segregated in professional Sports 78
- The use of social media is replacing face to face interaction among many people in society Do you think the advantages outweigh the disadvantages 89
- Some people say cultural traditions are destroyed when they are used as money making attractions aimed at tourists Others say this is the only way to save such traditions Discuss both views and give your opinion 56
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, consequently, however, if, may, so, then, while, in addition, in conclusion, in fact, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 13.1623246493 122% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 7.85571142285 76% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 10.4138276553 106% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 7.30460921844 123% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 24.0651302605 112% => OK
Preposition: 52.0 41.998997996 124% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 8.3376753507 84% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2049.0 1615.20841683 127% => OK
No of words: 346.0 315.596192385 110% => OK
Chars per words: 5.92196531792 5.12529762239 116% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.31289638616 4.20363070211 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.40818606196 2.80592935109 121% => OK
Unique words: 214.0 176.041082164 122% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.618497109827 0.561755894193 110% => OK
syllable_count: 645.3 506.74238477 127% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.9 1.60771543086 118% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 5.43587174349 147% => OK
Article: 3.0 2.52805611222 119% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.10420841683 143% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.76152304609 84% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 16.0721442886 87% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 20.2975951904 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 43.8725542955 49.4020404114 89% => OK
Chars per sentence: 146.357142857 106.682146367 137% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.7142857143 20.7667163134 119% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.0 7.06120827912 99% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.38176352705 114% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.67935871743 81% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 3.9879759519 125% => 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: 0.157506737065 0.244688304435 64% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0502478917798 0.084324248473 60% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0514534962152 0.0667982634062 77% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0906086556775 0.151304729494 60% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0506605390008 0.056905535591 89% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 18.8 13.0946893788 144% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 21.74 50.2224549098 43% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 13.0 7.44779559118 175% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 16.2 11.3001002004 143% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 17.35 12.4159519038 140% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.81 8.58950901804 126% => OK
difficult_words: 131.0 78.4519038076 167% => 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: 89.8876404494 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 8.0 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.