As people rely more and more on technology to solve problems, the ability of humans to think for themselves will surely deteriorate.
The problem-solving ability of human beings is part of an evolutionary process with incremental improvements. The earliest homo sapiens were surely not equipped to solve many of the dire problems we are tackling today. Moreover, technological advancements are the results of our efforts to transform perfunctory steps in problem-solving into a structured and efficacious entity. Hence, reliance on technology does not impede our thinking ability, rather, it adds new dimensions to our thoughts and subsequently helps us garner creative solutions.
Today technology has created new avenues and broadened our world view. Compared to any time in the history of the human race, scientific progress is unprecedented in this century. For comparison, we can look back to times when computing devices, an inseparable part of our lives today, were not invented. Surely, the people still needed to perform calculations, keep records of their finances and perform business activities, although, in a relatively limited scope. It is easy to imagine the hardship they had to undergo with each step of their scaling up. Although we might not be doing tedious calculations and keeping historic records in stacks of papers, it cannot be ascertained that our problem-solving ability has deteriorated. In contrast, the rate of innovation is at its peak today.
Problem-solving skills and thinking ability constitutes a diverse array of parts. The functions and tasks, which were once part of our to-do list, that we have successfully devolved to machines, have freed us cognitive resources that we can deploy in our arenas of problem-solving. These additions of cognitive resources have presented us with new opportunities, increased innovation and the surge of scientific breakthroughs. For example, the human genome project which requires a significant amount of computation power to understand the intricate details of our genetical structure, would not have been considered possible just a few centuries ago. Technology and our reliance on it is an enhancement, an inevitable part of evolution, and not a replacement for our thinking abilities.
Human beings have an innate desire to solve problems and create meaningful change around him/her. This desire has propelled us to create technology that has eased our life, increased security, opened up new opportunities in business and led us to explore the furthest corners of the universe. Although, the downsides of many inventions, starting from their pernicious effect on our health to the degradation of the environment, has time and again led us to question whether technology is a bane or boon. Nevertheless, the best possible ways to tackle those downsides were also presented by people equipped with advanced technologies. Today, people strive to solve problems in the field of climate change, astronomy, medicine, etc, which would not have seen the light of the day without the technologies that empower us. Surely, technology has not deteriorated our problem solving and thinking skills, rather enhanced it by equipping us with sophisticated tools that have positively multiplied our cognitive ability.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, hence, if, look, moreover, nevertheless, so, still, for example, in contrast
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 19.5258426966 77% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 12.4196629213 48% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 14.8657303371 101% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 11.3162921348 88% => OK
Pronoun: 50.0 33.0505617978 151% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 67.0 58.6224719101 114% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 12.9106741573 85% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2666.0 2235.4752809 119% => OK
No of words: 485.0 442.535393258 110% => OK
Chars per words: 5.49690721649 5.05705443957 109% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.69283662038 4.55969084622 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.20667281742 2.79657885939 115% => OK
Unique words: 265.0 215.323595506 123% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.546391752577 0.4932671777 111% => OK
syllable_count: 844.2 704.065955056 120% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 6.24550561798 112% => OK
Article: 10.0 4.99550561798 200% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 1.0 3.10617977528 32% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.38483146067 46% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 20.2370786517 109% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 23.0359550562 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 47.3214128667 60.3974514979 78% => OK
Chars per sentence: 121.181818182 118.986275619 102% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.0454545455 23.4991977007 94% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.72727272727 5.21951772744 71% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 7.80617977528 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 17.0 10.2758426966 165% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 5.13820224719 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.83258426966 41% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.204487490468 0.243740707755 84% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0676806092146 0.0831039109588 81% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0550664625837 0.0758088955206 73% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.141639249529 0.150359130593 94% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0423996878794 0.0667264976115 64% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.5 14.1392134831 110% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 40.69 48.8420337079 83% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.1 12.1743820225 108% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.62 12.1639044944 120% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.71 8.38706741573 116% => OK
difficult_words: 153.0 100.480337079 152% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 11.8971910112 88% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.2143820225 96% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.7820224719 93% => 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: 79.17 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.75 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.