As people rely more and more on technology to solve problems, the ability of humans to think for themselves will surely deteriorate.
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
occurences would 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 Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take In 66
- As people rely more and more on technology to solve problems the ability of humans to think for themselves will surely deteriorate Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take In 66
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...vable at the turn of the 19th century. The statement attempts to bridge these d...
^^^^
Line 15, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...nking by making the problems obsolete. However, this reliance on technology doe...
^^^^
Line 22, column 51, 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 s...
^^^^^^^^
Line 26, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...maverick scientists and politicians. In contrast to the statement, we can eve...
^^^^
Line 35, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...rom South America to Eastern Europe. This last example provides the most hope...
^^^^
Line 41, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ystematically targeted and eradicated. Technology will always mark the human ex...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, however, if, likewise, look, may, so, in contrast, in fact, such as, in contrast to
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 19.5258426966 67% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 12.4196629213 129% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 14.8657303371 94% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 11.3162921348 124% => OK
Pronoun: 29.0 33.0505617978 88% => OK
Preposition: 87.0 58.6224719101 148% => OK
Nominalization: 31.0 12.9106741573 240% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3564.0 2235.4752809 159% => OK
No of words: 628.0 442.535393258 142% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.67515923567 5.05705443957 112% => OK
Fourth root words length: 5.00598923014 4.55969084622 110% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.07864777666 2.79657885939 110% => OK
Unique words: 355.0 215.323595506 165% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.565286624204 0.4932671777 115% => OK
syllable_count: 1113.3 704.065955056 158% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.59117977528 113% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 6.24550561798 96% => OK
Article: 10.0 4.99550561798 200% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 0.0 3.10617977528 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 7.0 1.77640449438 394% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 8.0 4.38483146067 182% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 35.0 20.2370786517 173% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 23.0359550562 74% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 32.5168716019 60.3974514979 54% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 101.828571429 118.986275619 86% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.9428571429 23.4991977007 76% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.8 5.21951772744 54% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 44.0 4.97078651685 885% => Less paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 6.0 7.80617977528 77% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 19.0 10.2758426966 185% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 5.13820224719 136% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 9.0 4.83258426966 186% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.26511536173 0.243740707755 109% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0622524575129 0.0831039109588 75% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0569283399449 0.0758088955206 75% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0542450009462 0.150359130593 36% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0543882342737 0.0667264976115 82% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.3 14.1392134831 101% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 37.3 48.8420337079 76% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.1743820225 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.37 12.1639044944 126% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.78 8.38706741573 117% => OK
difficult_words: 211.0 100.480337079 210% => Less difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 11.8971910112 71% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 11.2143820225 78% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Maximum six paragraphs wanted.
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.