As people rely more and more on technology to solve problems, the ability of humans to think for themselves will surely deteriorate.
We live in an era, where technology is intertwined in every sphere of life and makes our day-to-day work a lot easier than before. We use technology to solve tiny problems as well as gigantic ones. The prompt suggests that our ability to think will surely get dilapidated as we keep relying on technology more and more. In my opinion, I mostly disagree with the statement and I argue that though the technology is solving our problems and making our life easier, the byproducts of the technological improvements create newer problems that require the highest level of analytical thinking by humans.
To begin, the astonishing advancement made in the technology sector in the last decade of the twentieth century and the beginning of the twenty-first century is evident in our regular routine - from waking up in the morning till sleeping at night, we are utilizing the blessings of technology. To a certain extent, we are having to think less and in doing so we are becoming relatively lazier. For example, if it were not for the technical support like "Google Map", we would have to figure out the addresses rigorously and would have to put considerable effort into visiting new areas by asking people or finding addresses in traditional maps and thinking about the best possible route. In that sense, our task has become way much easier as we are one "search" away from finding the best route to our destination. Another example can be the use of computational tools for calculations; e.g., calculator and computer. Prior to the invention of these tools, humans used to perform calculations in rigorous ways utilizing human thinking power and it was time-consuming and arduous in nature. Taking this into account, one might claim that humans have stopped thinking and have become completely dependent on technological support.
However, technology may have made our life easier and to a certain extent made us lazier, but it never made us thoughtless. Each technological improvement is associated with momentous efforts put in by scientists and engineers. With the invention of new technology comes newer problems, which require a thorough understanding of the problems and analysis in a diligent manner for the solution. For example, the invention of automatic vehicles has opened a new era in the transportation sector. It took years of relentless work by thousands of scientists and engineers to make it practical. One may assume that this will make humans less thoughtful as there is no need for drivers anymore. However, the advent of technology itself comes with greater responsibility. Tons of problems related to control, precision, and communication will arise regularly, and to make this sector sustainable, engineers will have to push their thinking capability to the limit. Another example can be the use of software like “Microsoft Office”, which has made our official work easier compared to the old-fashioned type-writers. Though the use of the software made the written documents pleasing to the eyes and much easier to write and modify, a user still has to be prudent regarding the formatting, choice of words, and use of colors to make the documents persuasive. In that sense, technology is making us think more than ever.
Of course, some will still argue that the higher dependency on technology will make us vacuous. But, technology offers newer problems, which require analytical thinking and persuasive problem-solving. Technology may make us lazier but understanding newer problems and figuring out their solutions make us cognitively sound.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 356, Rule ID: IN_A_X_MANNER[1]
Message: Consider replacing "in a diligent manner" with adverb for "diligent"; eg, "in a hasty manner" with "hastily".
...erstanding of the problems and analysis in a diligent manner for the solution. For example, the inve...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, e.g., first, however, if, may, regarding, so, still, well, as to, for example, of course, as well as, in my opinion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 19.5258426966 77% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.4196629213 121% => OK
Conjunction : 26.0 14.8657303371 175% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 11.3162921348 106% => OK
Pronoun: 46.0 33.0505617978 139% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 83.0 58.6224719101 142% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 12.9106741573 77% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3025.0 2235.4752809 135% => OK
No of words: 577.0 442.535393258 130% => OK
Chars per words: 5.24263431542 5.05705443957 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.90110439584 4.55969084622 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.06663864486 2.79657885939 110% => OK
Unique words: 284.0 215.323595506 132% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.492201039861 0.4932671777 100% => OK
syllable_count: 967.5 704.065955056 137% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 6.24550561798 128% => OK
Article: 6.0 4.99550561798 120% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.77640449438 225% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 9.0 4.38483146067 205% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 25.0 20.2370786517 124% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 23.0359550562 100% => OK
Sentence length SD: 67.5438109674 60.3974514979 112% => OK
Chars per sentence: 121.0 118.986275619 102% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.08 23.4991977007 98% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.8 5.21951772744 92% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 14.0 10.2758426966 136% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 5.13820224719 156% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.83258426966 62% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.280619773345 0.243740707755 115% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0822299515393 0.0831039109588 99% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0869753761761 0.0758088955206 115% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.177329249786 0.150359130593 118% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0720032445694 0.0667264976115 108% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.8 14.1392134831 105% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 39.67 48.8420337079 81% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 12.1743820225 110% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.41 12.1639044944 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.96 8.38706741573 107% => OK
difficult_words: 153.0 100.480337079 152% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.0 11.8971910112 126% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.2143820225 100% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.7820224719 127% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Better to have 5/6 paragraphs with 3/4 arguments. And try always support/against one side but compare two sides, like this:
para 1: introduction
para 2: reason 1. address both of the views presented for reason 1
para 3: reason 2. address both of the views presented for reason 2
para 4: reason 3. address both of the views presented for reason 3
para 5: reason 4. address both of the views presented for reason 4 (optional)
para 6: conclusion.
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.