As humans rely more on technology, the ability of humans to think for themselves will surely deteriorate.
Looking at the world through the rose-tinted glasses of nostalgia is a very human trait. For some inexplicable reason, things always seemed better ‘back then’. The colours were brighter, the music, better, the grass, greener. Nowhere is this sentiment more visible than in society’s perception of technology.
Moore’s law states that the number of transistors that can be fit on a chip doubles every two years or so. This kind of growth is exponential, and computers and computing devices can, in the short span of a decade or two, become completely unrecognizable, and give rise to features and new applications of technology we could previously not conceive. Such change can make one pin any perceived problems of modern society on technology. To a generation that grew up using Desktop PCs with boxy CRTs and dial up modems, the smartphone with internet speeds approaching gigabits per second might be the root cause of what is ‘corrupting the youth’. Likewise, to a person from the 80s, with exposure to computers lacking even a graphical user interface, assuming he/she was lucky enough to have that exposure in the first place, the internet and computers in any form might seem to be reducing critical thinking.
The question we must thus ask ourselves is, is there any merit to any of this sentiment? I think there isn’t any. Some may argue that the ease that technology provides us hampers our problem-solving skills. Like for example, the calculator on your phone might weaken your arithmetic skills. Or the infinite access to information via the internet might weaken your memory. Or the easy commute to and from work courtesy the automobile might spoil your health. There is some truth to all of these statements, but that partial truth can easily conceal the actual picture. In my opinion, what technology does, is it gives us time. This time allows us to be far more efficient. Sure, you might not need to add numbers as often. But the time you save on that can allow you to work on something more complex than what can be solved on a calculator. Of course, not having to memorize facts can weaken your memory. But the time saved on memorizing said facts can be spent using those facts on a real-world problem. The commute to work might take away the exercise of a good walk, but it potentially frees up enough travel time for one to exercise at home/in the gym instead. Technology is the lever that multiplies our mind’s effectiveness by freeing it from the more mundane tasks associated with problem solving, thereby allowing it to focus on what really matters. The examples I mentioned were simplistic. Complex AIs for example can optimize the work of mechanical engineers to further improve efficiency and safety. Technology thus is simply a tool that helps us better solve problems, and in this world, there is no shortage of those. From corrupt and oppressive governments to pollution and climate change, we will have to rely on technology coupled with human ingenuity to solve them.
- In any field of inquiry the beginner is more likely than the expert to make important contributions 50
- Twenty years ago Dr Field a noted anthropologist visited the island of Tertia and concluded from his observations that children in Tertia were reared by an entire village rather than by their own biological parents However my recent interviews with childr 57
- The surest indicator of a great nation is represented not by the achievements of its rulers artists or scientists but by the general welfare of its people 62
- Governments should offer college and university education free of charge to all students 70
- Teachers salaries should be based on their students academic performance 79
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 124, Rule ID: MASS_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Possible agreement error - use third-person verb forms for singular and mass nouns: 'argues'.
Suggestion: argues
...ment? I think there isn’t any. Some may argue that the ease that technology provides ...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 1006, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
...ng those facts on a real-world problem. The commute to work might take away the exercise of...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, likewise, look, may, really, second, so, then, thus, for example, i think, kind of, of course, in my opinion, in the first place
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.5258426966 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 21.0 12.4196629213 169% => OK
Conjunction : 19.0 14.8657303371 128% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 11.3162921348 88% => OK
Pronoun: 46.0 33.0505617978 139% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 69.0 58.6224719101 118% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 12.9106741573 54% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2517.0 2235.4752809 113% => OK
No of words: 509.0 442.535393258 115% => OK
Chars per words: 4.94499017682 5.05705443957 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.74984508646 4.55969084622 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.73028219954 2.79657885939 98% => OK
Unique words: 286.0 215.323595506 133% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.561886051081 0.4932671777 114% => OK
syllable_count: 782.1 704.065955056 111% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59117977528 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 6.24550561798 80% => OK
Article: 9.0 4.99550561798 180% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 3.10617977528 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 9.0 1.77640449438 507% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 8.0 4.38483146067 182% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 28.0 20.2370786517 138% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 23.0359550562 78% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 58.3435790322 60.3974514979 97% => OK
Chars per sentence: 89.8928571429 118.986275619 76% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.1785714286 23.4991977007 77% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.0 5.21951772744 96% => OK
Paragraphs: 3.0 4.97078651685 60% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 17.0 10.2758426966 165% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 5.13820224719 97% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.83258426966 124% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.132186135255 0.243740707755 54% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0330003612917 0.0831039109588 40% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0413472814574 0.0758088955206 55% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0832373254388 0.150359130593 55% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0534360020945 0.0667264976115 80% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.9 14.1392134831 77% => 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: 11.08 12.1639044944 91% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.56 8.38706741573 102% => OK
difficult_words: 130.0 100.480337079 129% => OK
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?
---------------------
Minimum four paragraphs wanted.
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.