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.
As technology advances, many tasks that are originally done by humans are now accomplished by machines and algorithms. Some people argue that because technologies can solve lots of problems for humans, we are losing the ability to think for ourselves. I support this view conservatively. Although we may lose some of the ability to solve simple problems that can be resolved by technologies, our ability to discuss problems that cannot be conquered by the computers may get better.
First of all, I acknowledge that our ability to solve easy problems can deteriorate since these problems can mostly be solved by technologies for us. Although the human brain is a natural computer that can solve many problems, our ability to do mental computation will only keep up at a high level of proficiency if we keep practicing those mental computational functions. As technology takes over the tasks, our ability to handle those tasks will deteriorate due to the lack of practice. One example would be the deterioration of our ability to do easy math computation. As the calculators become easily accessible, we rely more and more on the machines to do math calculation while stop using our brain. As a result, our ability to do math calculation declined. However, not all human reasoning abilities are experiencing this deterioration.
Humans’ ability to think about complex scientific problems gets better as technology advances. Because technologies take over the simple tasks that need to be finished before discussing the complex questions, researchers have more mental space for those convoluted problems. For example, when effective math computation algorithms haven’t been created, psychologists need to do complex mathematical calculations by hand just to analyze their data. The mental and physical frustration caused by this exacting task can diminish the researchers’ ability to further discuss the results on a theoretical level. What’s more, due to the limitations of the human mind, the volume of data and the degree of complexity of the data collected are severely suppressed. Hence, the researchers can only extract limited information from the data, which further constrain their ability to discuss the results in a deeper level. The advancement of technology solves both of the problems discussed above. With powerful algorithms, researchers can collect a large volume of data and analyze it easily. Without the mental frustration and the limitations of the data, researchers are able to explore the deep-level implication of their results.
Because technologies do not have the ability to solve moral problems yet, humans’ moral reasoning ability is not affected by the development of technology. Although I acknowledge that the powerful computers and algorithms today are good at scientific computation, none of them can discuss moral problems as human beings. Hence, humans still have abundant opportunities to practice our moral reasoning ability without the worry that the ability may deteriorate.
In conclusion, the use of technology decreases our opportunities to solve simple questions by ourselves, which results in the deterioration of our ability to think about those problems. However, technologies also take off the mental burden created by those simple computational processes, which lead to the improvement of our ability to think about complex questions. Meanwhile, our ability to think about moral problems will not be affected by the development of technology yet, since none of the algorithms have the ability to understand human morality.
- 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 reason 66
- We can usually learn much more from people whose views we share than from people whose views contradict our own. 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 58
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 310, Rule ID: SOME_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'some'.
Suggestion: some
...ew conservatively. Although we may lose some of the ability to solve simple problems that c...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, hence, however, if, may, so, still, while, for example, in conclusion, as a result, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 19.5258426966 82% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 19.0 12.4196629213 153% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 14.8657303371 61% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 11.3162921348 115% => OK
Pronoun: 45.0 33.0505617978 136% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 82.0 58.6224719101 140% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 12.9106741573 132% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3048.0 2235.4752809 136% => OK
No of words: 555.0 442.535393258 125% => OK
Chars per words: 5.49189189189 5.05705443957 109% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.85370353223 4.55969084622 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.15950146012 2.79657885939 113% => OK
Unique words: 237.0 215.323595506 110% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.427027027027 0.4932671777 87% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 990.9 704.065955056 141% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.59117977528 113% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 6.24550561798 144% => OK
Article: 5.0 4.99550561798 100% => OK
Subordination: 11.0 3.10617977528 354% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.38483146067 91% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 26.0 20.2370786517 128% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 23.0359550562 91% => OK
Sentence length SD: 45.7159515361 60.3974514979 76% => OK
Chars per sentence: 117.230769231 118.986275619 99% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.3461538462 23.4991977007 91% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.19230769231 5.21951772744 80% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 18.0 10.2758426966 175% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 5.13820224719 136% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.83258426966 21% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.234291655257 0.243740707755 96% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0773871572579 0.0831039109588 93% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0438044910196 0.0758088955206 58% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.147784151064 0.150359130593 98% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0145488315884 0.0667264976115 22% => 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: 15.1 14.1392134831 107% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 33.24 48.8420337079 68% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 12.1743820225 113% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.56 12.1639044944 120% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.38 8.38706741573 100% => OK
difficult_words: 130.0 100.480337079 129% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.5 11.8971910112 105% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.2143820225 93% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.7820224719 127% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.