When computers first appeared on the scene, it was thought they would make us more productive in
providing goods and services, smarter and possibly happier. Skeptics claim that the opposite is true as
computers have proved disappointing in terms of productivity, and have made us less happy and more
stupid because information is not knowledge.
Which of these points of view do you agree with most? Support your argument with reasons and/or
examples from your own experience and observations.
Recently, the phenomenon of disappointing in terms of productivity by using computers and its corresponding impacts have sparked a heated debate. Although contested by many that the matter of complex procedures is highly beneficial, such issue is regarded thoroughly both constructive and positive by a substantial number of individuals. I am inclined to believe that being less happy by using computers can be a plus, and I will analyze that throughout this essay.
From a general standpoint, providing goods and services by using computers can provide the society with some noticeable effects which are rooted in the fact that crucial issues, as well as ultimate outcomes, are inextricably bound up. According to my own experience, when I was a university student, I performed an academic experiment which discovered current policies. Thus, beneficial ramifications of both this common phenomenon and complicated procedures apparently can be seen.
Within the realm of a public arena, good and services produced using computers might increase the consequences of critical needs. As a tangible example, some scientific research undertaken by a prestigious university has asserted that the downside of creative processes is correlated negatively with vital issues. Hence, it is correct to presume the preconceived notion of this remarkable phenomenon.
To conclude, while there are several compelling arguments on both sides, I profoundly believe that the benefits of being possibly smarter by using computers far outweigh its drawbacks. Not only do the advantages of this unique phenomenon prove the significance of total outcomes, but also pinpoint thorny issues potential implications.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, apparently, but, hence, if, so, thus, well, while, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 10.5418719212 114% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 6.10837438424 82% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 8.36945812808 84% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 5.94088669951 151% => OK
Pronoun: 19.0 20.9802955665 91% => OK
Preposition: 32.0 31.9359605911 100% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 5.75862068966 52% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1444.0 1207.87684729 120% => OK
No of words: 254.0 242.827586207 105% => OK
Chars per words: 5.68503937008 5.00649968141 114% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.99216450694 3.92707691288 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.20597201431 2.71678728327 118% => OK
Unique words: 167.0 139.433497537 120% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.657480314961 0.580463131201 113% => OK
syllable_count: 464.4 379.143842365 122% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.57093596059 115% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.6157635468 87% => OK
Article: 1.0 1.56157635468 64% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 1.71428571429 292% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 0.931034482759 215% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 3.65517241379 109% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 11.0 12.6551724138 87% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 20.5024630542 112% => OK
Sentence length SD: 40.1318076278 50.4703680194 80% => OK
Chars per sentence: 131.272727273 104.977214359 125% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.0909090909 20.9669160288 110% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.09090909091 7.25397266985 84% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.12807881773 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.33497536946 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 6.9802955665 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 2.75862068966 72% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 2.91625615764 34% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.101120309696 0.242375264174 42% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0363487921187 0.0925447433944 39% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0414415482752 0.071462118173 58% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.058216542448 0.151781067708 38% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0194880854371 0.0609392437508 32% => 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: 16.9 12.6369458128 134% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 31.21 53.1260098522 59% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 11.2 6.54236453202 171% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.6 10.9458128079 133% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.02 11.5310837438 139% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.93 8.32886699507 131% => OK
difficult_words: 99.0 55.0591133005 180% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 9.94827586207 146% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.3980295567 108% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 10.5123152709 143% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 85.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 76.5 Out of 90
---------------------
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.