Surely many of us have expressed the following sentiment, or some variation on it, during our daily commutes to work: "People are getting so stupid these days!" Surrounded as we are by striding and strident automatons with cell phones glued to their ears, PDA's gripped in their palms, and omniscient, omnipresent CNN gleaming in their eyeballs, it's tempting to believe that technology has isolated and infantilized us, essentally transforming us into dependent, conformist morons best equipped to sideswip one another in our SUV's.
Furthermore, hanging around with the younger, pre-commute generation, whom tech-savviness seems to have rendered lethal, is even less reassuring. With "Teen People" style trends shooting through the air from tiger-striped PDA to zebra-striped PDA, and with the latest starlet gossip zipping from juicy Blackberry to teeny, turbo-charged cell phone, technology seems to support young people's worst tendencies to follow the crowd. Indeed, they have seemingly evolved into intergalactic conformity police. After all, today's tech-aided teens are, courtesy of authentic, hands-on video games, literally trained to kill; courtesy of chat and instant text messaging, they have their own language; they even have tiny cameras to efficiently photodocument your fashion blunders! Is this adolescence, or paparazzi terrorist training camp?
With all this evidence, it's easy to believe that tech trends and the incorporation of technological wizardry into our everyday lives have served mostly to enforce conformity, promote dependence, heighten comsumerism and materialism, and generally create a culture that values self-absorption and personal entitlement over cooperation and collaboration. However, I argue that we are merely in the inchoate stages of learning to live with technology while still loving one another. After all, even given the examples provided earlier in this essay, it seems clear that technology hasn't impaired our thinking and problem-solving capacities. Certainly it has incapacitated our behavior and manners; certainly our values have taken a severe blow. However, we are inarguably more efficient in our badness these days. We're effective worker bees of ineffectiveness!
If T\technology has so increased our senses of self-efficacy that we can become veritable agents of the awful, virtual CEO's of selfishness, certainly it can be beneficial. Harnessed correctly, technology can improve our ability to think and act for ourselves. The first challenge is to figure out how to provide technology users with some direly-needed direction.
- Issue Essay:-People who make decisions based on emotion and justify those decisions with logic afterwards are poor decision makers. 16
- GRE Argument: An international development organization, in response to a vitamin A deficiency among people in the impoverished nation of Tagus, has engineered a new breed of millet high in vitamin A. While seeds for this new type of millet cost more, far 62
- As people rely more and more on technology to solve problems, the ability of humans to think for themselves will surely deteriorate. 58
- Issue Essay:-People who make decisions based on emotion and justify those decisions with logic afterwards are poor decision makers. 16
- A nation should require all of its students to study the same national curriculum until they enter college. 50
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 394, Rule ID: THE_SUPERLATIVE[2]
Message: A determiner is probably missing here: 'peoples the worst'.
Suggestion: peoples the worst
...hone, technology seems to support young peoples worst tendencies to follow the crowd. Indeed,...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 579, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: hasn't
...s essay, it seems clear that technology hasnt impaired our thinking and problem-solvi...
^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['first', 'furthermore', 'however', 'if', 'so', 'still', 'then', 'while', 'after all', 'as to']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.232662192394 0.240241500013 97% => OK
Verbs: 0.156599552573 0.157235817809 100% => OK
Adjectives: 0.10067114094 0.0880659088768 114% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0581655480984 0.0497285424764 117% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0715883668904 0.0444667217837 161% => Less pronouns wanted. Try not to use 'you, I, they, he...' as the subject of a sentence
Prepositions: 0.0984340044743 0.12292977631 80% => OK
Participles: 0.0536912751678 0.0406280797675 132% => OK
Conjunctions: 3.2174382998 2.79330140395 115% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0380313199105 0.030933414821 123% => OK
Particles: 0.00223713646532 0.0016655270985 134% => OK
Determiners: 0.0514541387025 0.0997080785238 52% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.00671140939597 0.0249443105267 27% => Some modal verbs wanted.
WH_determiners: 0.00671140939597 0.0148568991511 45% => Some subClauses wanted starting by 'Which, Who, What, Whom, Whose.....'
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2610.0 2732.02544248 96% => OK
No of words: 382.0 452.878318584 84% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 6.83246073298 6.0361032391 113% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.42095241839 4.58838876751 96% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.452879581152 0.366273622748 124% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.366492146597 0.280924506359 130% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.293193717277 0.200843997647 146% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.214659685864 0.132149295362 162% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.2174382998 2.79330140395 115% => OK
Unique words: 256.0 219.290929204 117% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.670157068063 0.48968727796 137% => OK
Word variations: 91.2568107906 55.4138127331 165% => OK
How many sentences: 15.0 20.6194690265 73% => OK
Sentence length: 25.4666666667 23.380412469 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 131.748177301 59.4972553346 221% => The lengths of sentences changed so frequently.
Chars per sentence: 174.0 141.124799967 123% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.4666666667 23.380412469 109% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.666666666667 0.674092028746 99% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.94800884956 81% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.21349557522 38% => OK
Readability: 62.1158813264 51.4728631049 121% => OK
Elegance: 1.34375 1.64882698954 81% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.317507236829 0.391690518653 81% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.0687768164352 0.123202303941 56% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0445294003631 0.077325440228 58% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.466454152902 0.547984918172 85% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.212645064533 0.149214159877 143% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.103017994687 0.161403998019 64% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0717894789528 0.0892212321368 80% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.255527008084 0.385218514788 66% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0236322559532 0.0692045440612 34% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.204403681924 0.275328986314 74% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0229792236842 0.0653680567796 35% => The ideas may be duplicated in paragraphs.
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 10.4325221239 105% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 5.30420353982 57% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.88274336283 20% => More neutral sentences wanted.
Positive topic words: 8.0 7.22455752212 111% => OK
Negative topic words: 2.0 3.66592920354 55% => OK
Neutral topic words: 0.0 2.70907079646 0% => More neutral topic words wanted.
Total topic words: 10.0 13.5995575221 74% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.