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.
- Internet is good or bad 73
- Loyalty is the most important quality in choosing a friend 70
- It is better to have a mentor to advise you in your career than to rely entirely on yourself 70
- A nation should require all of it s students to study the same national curriculum until they enter college 50
- It is better to have a mentor to advise you in your career than to rely entirely on yourself 70
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 236, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: the
... thinking is not merely technology, but the the tendency of human that they treat them ...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 236, Rule ID: DT_DT[1]
Message: Maybe you need to remove one determiner so that only 'the' or 'the' is left.
Suggestion: the; the
... thinking is not merely technology, but the the tendency of human that they treat them ...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 199, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'an' instead of 'a' if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g. 'an article', 'an hour'
Suggestion: an
...need. Even if you recognize a method as a all-mighty and it is extremely over-spe...
^
Line 7, column 38, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'done'.
Suggestion: done
... In addition, the technology as it is do not vain automatically, the is created ...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, consequently, furthermore, however, if, may, so, therefore, thus, in addition, of course
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: 10.0 12.4196629213 81% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 14.8657303371 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 2.0 11.3162921348 18% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 31.0 33.0505617978 94% => OK
Preposition: 40.0 58.6224719101 68% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 12.9106741573 31% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1398.0 2235.4752809 63% => OK
No of words: 294.0 442.535393258 66% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.75510204082 5.05705443957 94% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.14082457966 4.55969084622 91% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.80163937913 2.79657885939 100% => OK
Unique words: 156.0 215.323595506 72% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.530612244898 0.4932671777 108% => OK
syllable_count: 449.1 704.065955056 64% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59117977528 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 6.24550561798 96% => OK
Article: 5.0 4.99550561798 100% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 5.0 1.77640449438 281% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 5.0 4.38483146067 114% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 20.2370786517 79% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 18.0 23.0359550562 78% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 40.0866249515 60.3974514979 66% => OK
Chars per sentence: 87.375 118.986275619 73% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.375 23.4991977007 78% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.8125 5.21951772744 111% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 7.80617977528 51% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 10.2758426966 78% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 5.13820224719 97% => 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: 0.163435013517 0.243740707755 67% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0511853228201 0.0831039109588 62% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0485499096328 0.0758088955206 64% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0983077167384 0.150359130593 65% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.055354555039 0.0667264976115 83% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.2 14.1392134831 72% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 61.67 48.8420337079 126% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 12.1743820225 75% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.33 12.1639044944 85% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.34 8.38706741573 99% => OK
difficult_words: 71.0 100.480337079 71% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 11.8971910112 71% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.2143820225 82% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.