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.
The statement linking technology negatively with free thinking plays on recent human experience over the past century. Surely there has been no time in history where the lived lives of people have changed more dramatically. A quick reflection on a typical day reveals how technology has revolutionized the world. Most people commute to work in an automobile that runs on an internal combustion engine. During the workday, chances are high that the employee will interact with a computer that processes information on silicon bridges that are .09 microns wide. Upon leaving home, family members will be reached through wireless networks that utilize satellites orbiting the earth. Each of these common occurrences could have been inconceivable at the turn of the 19th century.
The statement attempts to bridge these dramatic changes to a reduction in the ability for humans to think for themselves. The assumption is that an increased reliance on technology negates the need for people to think creatively to solve previous quandaries. Looking back at the introduction, one could argue that without a car, computer, or mobile phone, the hypothetical worker would need to find alternate methods of transport, information processing and communication. Technology short circuits this thinking by making the problems obsolete.
However, this reliance on technology does not necessarily preclude the creativity that marks the human species. The prior examples reveal that technology allows for convenience. The car, computer and phone all release additional time for people to live more efficiently. This efficiency does not preclude the need for humans to think for themselves. In fact, technology frees humanity to not only tackle new problems, but may itself create new issues that did not exist without technology. For example, the proliferation of automobiles has introduced a need for fuel conservation on a global scale. With increasing energy demands from emerging markets, global warming becomes a concern inconceivable to the horse-and-buggy generation. Likewise dependence on oil has created nation-states that are not dependent on taxation, allowing ruling parties to oppress minority groups such as women. Solutions to these complex problems require the unfettered imaginations of maverick scientists and politicians.
In contrast to the statement, we can even see how technology frees the human imagination. Consider how the digital revolution and the advent of the internet has allowed for an unprecedented exchange of ideas. WebMD, a popular internet portal for medical information, permits patients to self research symptoms for a more informed doctor visit. This exercise opens pathways of thinking that were previously closed off to the medical layman. With increased interdisciplinary interactions, inspiration can arrive from the most surprising corners. Jeffrey Sachs, one of the architects of the UN Millenium Development Goals, based his ideas on emergency care triage techniques. The unlikely marriage of economics and medicine has healed tense, hyperinflation environments from South America to Eastern Europe.
This last example provides the most hope in how technology actually provides hope to the future of humanity. By increasing our reliance on technology, impossible goals can now be achieved. Consider how the late 20th century witnessed the complete elimination of smallpox. This disease had ravaged the human race since prehistorical days, and yet with the technology of vaccines, free thinking humans dared to imagine a world free of smallpox. Using technology, battle plans were drawn out, and smallpox was systematically targeted and eradicated.
Technology will always mark the human experience, from the discovery of fire to the implementation of nanotechnology. Given the history of the human race, there will be no limit to the number of problems, both new and old, for us to tackle. There is no need to retreat to a Luddite attitude to new things, but rather embrace a hopeful posture to the possibilities that technology provides for new avenues of human imagination.
- 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 reasoni 83
- 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 reasoni 58
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 736, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Likewise,
...able to the horse-and-buggy generation. Likewise dependence on oil has created nation-st...
^^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['actually', 'but', 'however', 'if', 'likewise', 'look', 'may', 'so', 'for example', 'in contrast', 'in fact', 'such as', 'in contrast to']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.291486291486 0.240241500013 121% => OK
Verbs: 0.147186147186 0.157235817809 94% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0894660894661 0.0880659088768 102% => OK
Adverbs: 0.038961038961 0.0497285424764 78% => OK
Pronouns: 0.010101010101 0.0444667217837 23% => Some pronouns wanted.
Prepositions: 0.111111111111 0.12292977631 90% => OK
Participles: 0.04329004329 0.0406280797675 107% => OK
Conjunctions: 3.09383908543 2.79330140395 111% => OK
Infinitives: 0.037518037518 0.030933414821 121% => OK
Particles: 0.002886002886 0.0016655270985 173% => OK
Determiners: 0.113997113997 0.0997080785238 114% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.015873015873 0.0249443105267 64% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.021645021645 0.0148568991511 146% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 4117.0 2732.02544248 151% => OK
No of words: 627.0 452.878318584 138% => OK
Chars per words: 6.56618819777 6.0361032391 109% => OK
Fourth root words length: 5.00399520894 4.58838876751 109% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.44019138756 0.366273622748 120% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.360446570973 0.280924506359 128% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.267942583732 0.200843997647 133% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.170653907496 0.132149295362 129% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.09383908543 2.79330140395 111% => OK
Unique words: 354.0 219.290929204 161% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.564593301435 0.48968727796 115% => OK
Word variations: 75.746900194 55.4138127331 137% => OK
How many sentences: 35.0 20.6194690265 170% => OK
Sentence length: 17.9142857143 23.380412469 77% => OK
Sentence length SD: 31.7094719641 59.4972553346 53% => OK
Chars per sentence: 117.628571429 141.124799967 83% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.9142857143 23.380412469 77% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.371428571429 0.674092028746 55% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 4.94800884956 121% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.21349557522 19% => OK
Readability: 53.9589428116 51.4728631049 105% => OK
Elegance: 2.27205882353 1.64882698954 138% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.492757457194 0.391690518653 126% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.0717299695474 0.123202303941 58% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0662601223292 0.077325440228 86% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.465527633099 0.547984918172 85% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.137938720907 0.149214159877 92% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.165324666659 0.161403998019 102% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0765162177026 0.0892212321368 86% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.415981728695 0.385218514788 108% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0459074430378 0.0692045440612 66% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.338016646679 0.275328986314 123% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0516854512377 0.0653680567796 79% => The ideas may be duplicated in paragraphs.
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 19.0 10.4325221239 182% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 5.30420353982 132% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 9.0 4.88274336283 184% => Less neutral sentences wanted.
Positive topic words: 13.0 7.22455752212 180% => OK
Negative topic words: 5.0 3.66592920354 136% => OK
Neutral topic words: 3.0 2.70907079646 111% => OK
Total topic words: 21.0 13.5995575221 154% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: This is not the final score. 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.