“As people rely more and more on technology to solve problems, the ability of humans to think for themselves will surely deteriorate.”
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position.
Here’s a question: Do you memorize the phone number of your closest friend? Can you write down your grandparent’s home address without looking it up in your phone? In my case, I can’t. I have to look it up in my phone to answer those questions. Interesting thing is, that I used to answer those questions before. When phones weren’t good enough like these days, I used to memorize all the phone numbers of my closest friends, parents, and even neighbors, because phones back then weren’t that easy to save those informations.
Listening to this example, some might say that my thinking-ability has deteriorated due to the advancement of technology. However, I strongly believe that’s not true. I can surely say that high-technology nowadays improves human’s ability to think better in a more-creative way, and thus make a better world for us to live. Here’s why:
First of all, constant and aggressive advancement of technology during the past several years itself is created by high-level of creative reasoning and thinking from human brain. For example, many improvements in IT business such as social-networking services or cloud-computing technology became available using sophisticated programming languages. Use of those languages requires several abilities: an ability of rigorous logical analysis in order to make a flawless program without a single bug, and an ability to make a creative algorithm in order to make a lighter and faster program that allows execution in every computer world wide. These necessity of thinking power for technological advancement surely belies the notion that high-tech does reduce our strength of brain work.
Second, whole-new problems created by technological advancements allow humans to think of a whole-new, creative solution, using their ability to think. Traffic jam, for instance, is a new social problem occurred by the widespread individual transportations. When cars were not cheap enough, so not everyone could buy their own cars, there were no such problems like ‘rush hour’ or ‘traffic jam’ in most cities. However, as industrial engineering technologies developed, cars became economically available to almost everyone, becoming a wide-spread individual transportation tool, and resulted in an increase of traffic. We humans, fortunately, are working on this problem using many creative ideas. Waze, Google maps, and many other apps navigate us the ways where there’s less traffic, and try to make traffic flows distributed for everyone’s good. This kind of example would not be able if humans’ ability of thinking got deteriorated by the advancement of technology.
Third, advanced technology lets people to leave simple calculation, memorizing, repetitive tasks for automated computers and machines, and allow us to focus on other tasks that require creative and critical thinking. The very first example I mentioned in this essay, the example of memorizing people’s phone numbers and address, is a perfect example for this. Instead of spending precious time to memorize simple numbers and letters, people can spend time doing creative brain works, logical reasoning, or else.
At this point, however, one simple condition (or assumption) that gives true validity to all these reasoning finally appears: Humans, as a whole, try to be creative and logical, and are likely to think.
If this single assumption does not hold true, all these reasoning becomes ephemeral and evanescent. People would rely on the technology given at this moment, and most likely just stay at this state without thinking or dreaming about further improvements. However, I don’t believe that’s true. Dreaming for a better future is our humans’ innate behavior. That’s how humans survived for long history of time, achieved an apex of material civilization.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-04-06 | Younghyo Park | 79 | view |
| 2017-01-01 | pooja96 | 58 | view |
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 630, Rule ID: EN_COMPOUNDS
Message: This word is normally spelled as one.
Suggestion: worldwide
...that allows execution in every computer world wide. These necessity of thinking power for ...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 630, Rule ID: WORLD_WIDE[1]
Message: Did you mean 'worldwide'?
Suggestion: worldwide
...that allows execution in every computer world wide. These necessity of thinking power for ...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 642, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'this necessity' or 'These necessities'?
Suggestion: This necessity; These necessities
...execution in every computer world wide. These necessity of thinking power for technological adv...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, however, if, look, second, so, then, third, thus, for example, for instance, kind of, such as, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 19.5258426966 56% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.4196629213 64% => OK
Conjunction : 23.0 14.8657303371 155% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 11.3162921348 115% => OK
Pronoun: 56.0 33.0505617978 169% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 75.0 58.6224719101 128% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 12.9106741573 108% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3312.0 2235.4752809 148% => OK
No of words: 593.0 442.535393258 134% => OK
Chars per words: 5.58516020236 5.05705443957 110% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.93473315629 4.55969084622 108% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.1986152588 2.79657885939 114% => OK
Unique words: 325.0 215.323595506 151% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.548060708263 0.4932671777 111% => OK
syllable_count: 1042.2 704.065955056 148% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.59117977528 113% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 6.24550561798 160% => OK
Article: 2.0 4.99550561798 40% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 3.10617977528 193% => OK
Conjunction: 11.0 1.77640449438 619% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 4.38483146067 91% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 29.0 20.2370786517 143% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 23.0359550562 87% => OK
Sentence length SD: 61.8423641396 60.3974514979 102% => OK
Chars per sentence: 114.206896552 118.986275619 96% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.4482758621 23.4991977007 87% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.41379310345 5.21951772744 85% => OK
Paragraphs: 7.0 4.97078651685 141% => Less paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 3.0 7.80617977528 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 20.0 10.2758426966 195% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 5.13820224719 97% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.83258426966 83% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.238705139755 0.243740707755 98% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.070029769913 0.0831039109588 84% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0511103133944 0.0758088955206 67% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.117325761137 0.150359130593 78% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0595637516029 0.0667264976115 89% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.1 14.1392134831 107% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 34.26 48.8420337079 70% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.5 12.1743820225 111% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.14 12.1639044944 124% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.02 8.38706741573 108% => OK
difficult_words: 165.0 100.480337079 164% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.0 11.8971910112 59% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.2143820225 89% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.7820224719 85% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Maximum six paragraphs wanted.
Rates: 79.17 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.75 Out of 6
---------------------
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.