As people rely more and more on technology to solve problems, the ability of
humans to think for themselves will surely deteriorate.
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 techaided
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 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.
- The following is a memorandum from the business manager of a television station Over the past year our late night news program has devoted increased time to national news and less time to weather and local news During this time period most of the complain 68
- The following appeared as a letter to the editor of a national newspaper Your recent article on corporate downsizing in Elthyria maintains that the majority of competent workers who have lost jobs as a result of downsizing face serious economic hardship o 58
- As people rely more and more on technology to solve problems the ability of humans to think for themselves will surely deteriorate 66
- The following appeared as a letter to the editor of a national newspaper Your recent article on corporate downsizing in Elthyria maintains that the majority of competent workers who have lost jobs as a result of downsizing face serious economic hardship o 77
- The following is taken from a memo from the advertising director of the Super Screen Movie Production Company According to a recent report from our marketing department during the past year fewer people attended Super Screen produced movies than in any ot 68
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, furthermore, however, if, so, still, then, while, after all, as to
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 19.5258426966 46% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 12.4196629213 24% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 14.8657303371 101% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 11.3162921348 62% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 44.0 33.0505617978 133% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 54.0 58.6224719101 92% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 12.9106741573 101% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2302.0 2235.4752809 103% => OK
No of words: 382.0 442.535393258 86% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 6.02617801047 5.05705443957 119% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.42095241839 4.55969084622 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.17243358626 2.79657885939 113% => OK
Unique words: 255.0 215.323595506 118% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.667539267016 0.4932671777 135% => OK
syllable_count: 687.6 704.065955056 98% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.59117977528 113% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 12.0 6.24550561798 192% => OK
Article: 1.0 4.99550561798 20% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 3.10617977528 97% => OK
Conjunction: 5.0 1.77640449438 281% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 6.0 4.38483146067 137% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 20.2370786517 64% => 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: 29.0 23.0359550562 126% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 137.995326222 60.3974514979 228% => The lengths of sentences changed so frequently.
Chars per sentence: 177.076923077 118.986275619 149% => OK
Words per sentence: 29.3846153846 23.4991977007 125% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.61538461538 5.21951772744 108% => OK
Paragraphs: 35.0 4.97078651685 704% => Less paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 0.0 7.80617977528 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 10.2758426966 88% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 5.13820224719 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.83258426966 21% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.121211226414 0.243740707755 50% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0464156043049 0.0831039109588 56% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0517303293636 0.0758088955206 68% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0244623383135 0.150359130593 16% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0316372845586 0.0667264976115 47% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 21.7 14.1392134831 153% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 25.12 48.8420337079 51% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 13.0 7.92365168539 164% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 17.0 12.1743820225 140% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 18.29 12.1639044944 150% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.9 8.38706741573 130% => OK
difficult_words: 141.0 100.480337079 140% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 29.5 11.8971910112 248% => Linsear_write_formula is high.
gunning_fog: 13.6 11.2143820225 121% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.7820224719 110% => 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.