Nowadays, technologies have become the essential part of human society. Some people argue that the splendid development of the technology degenerated the human ability to think. This holds some truth, but I do not totally agree with this view. Rather, I believe human's thinking ability has developed along the development of technologies. The following essay will argue why that is.
Admittedly, thanks to the useful technologies, we do not need to spend more time to use our brains. For instance, by using calculators or navigators, it became unnecessary to calculate long numbers or read the map by ourselves. Even, the supercomputers analyze data and present the future scenarios which would have taken much more time for people to do. Those who believe the technologies degenerated human's thinking ability assume that we exchanged the chances to use our brains with the ease and comfortability coming from the use of technologies. And they think the use of technologies is so prevalent and widespread in our lives. However, still, those who plan the use of technologies are the human. Before operating the supercomputer to analyze the data for the weather forecast, it requires our decisions about what information to use and how they will be analyzed. That is, the planning for the supercomputer's operation is only the job of people.
In addition, there are areas that technology did not replace the human: decision-making process. Human's thinking abilities are not confined to mathematical calculations or finding geographical ways to get to somewhere. Rather, we have the ability to expect the unprecedented situations. The uncertainty and unpredictability of the current society require human who can imagine the unprecedented situations, unlike computers who can only think about what has occurred beforehand. Let's take the example of the North Korea's nuclear development issue. It is so complicated one which requires countries to think up of diplomatic strategies, possible military options, etc. As the situation is up to change, depending on the fickleness of North Korea, international societies need to prepare as many as scenarios as they can and prepare for them. Can the technology imagine the scenarios that never existed before? No, they cannot since the intellectual ability to imagine and think unpredictable situations is only endowed to humans.
Furthermore, those who agree with the issue supposes that the general people use the technology without knowing how it works. Thus, the general average of human thinking skills decrease. However, by the inventions of the technologies, human also had to learn how to use the new technologies. For example, can we say those who use the internet have less thinking ability than those who cannot? Maybe not. To use the internet, one had to learn how to find appropriate sources on the internet as we do at the library. Instead of looking up the directory and finding books one by one, people need to select appropriate keywords and search engines. That is, without understanding how the internet works, one cannot utilize the technology. Therefore, even with the presence of technology, we still need to understand how the technologies work and function.
To sum up, we rely on technology for the convenience of ourselves, but it is hard to say that they reduced our ability to think ourselves. As the society is getting more complicated, there remain areas where requires the human's ability to plan and imagine. Furthermore, using the technology also require us to know how to use them, so the human's ability to understand might be improved by learning the new technologies. Therefore, the reliance on technology does not deteriorate the ability of humans to think for ourselves.
Essay evaluation report
flaws:
No. of Words: 601 350 //It is too long. It doesn't need summary at the conclusion.
----------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.5 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 34 15
No. of Words: 601 350
No. of Characters: 3078 1500
No. of Different Words: 258 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.951 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.121 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.994 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 215 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 185 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 122 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 91 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 17.676 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.098 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.412 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.271 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.444 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.125 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 906, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'supercomputers'' or 'supercomputer's'?
Suggestion: supercomputers'; supercomputer's
...analyzed. That is, the planning for the supercomputers operation is only the job of people. ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 481, Rule ID: LETS_LET[1]
Message: Did you mean 'Let's'?
Suggestion: Let's
...ink about what has occurred beforehand. Lets take the example of the North Koreas nu...
^^^^
Line 9, column 223, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'humans'' or 'human's'?
Suggestion: humans'; human's
..., there remain areas where requires the humans ability to plan and imagine. Furthermor...
^^^^^^
Line 9, column 341, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'humans'' or 'human's'?
Suggestion: humans'; human's
...uire us to know how to use them, so the humans ability to understand might be improved...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, furthermore, however, look, may, so, still, therefore, thus, for example, for instance, in addition, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 19.5258426966 77% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 12.4196629213 129% => OK
Conjunction : 17.0 14.8657303371 114% => OK
Relative clauses : 19.0 11.3162921348 168% => OK
Pronoun: 47.0 33.0505617978 142% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 79.0 58.6224719101 135% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 12.9106741573 93% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3158.0 2235.4752809 141% => OK
No of words: 601.0 442.535393258 136% => OK
Chars per words: 5.25457570715 5.05705443957 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.95129289623 4.55969084622 109% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.08066007975 2.79657885939 110% => OK
Unique words: 272.0 215.323595506 126% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.452579034942 0.4932671777 92% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 1035.9 704.065955056 147% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 15.0 6.24550561798 240% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 6.0 4.99550561798 120% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 3.10617977528 97% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.77640449438 169% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 4.38483146067 182% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 34.0 20.2370786517 168% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 23.0359550562 74% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 39.8969693494 60.3974514979 66% => OK
Chars per sentence: 92.8823529412 118.986275619 78% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.6764705882 23.4991977007 75% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.55882352941 5.21951772744 68% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 7.80617977528 51% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 10.2758426966 107% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 5.13820224719 97% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 19.0 4.83258426966 393% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.205177806602 0.243740707755 84% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0581491877211 0.0831039109588 70% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0412906117262 0.0758088955206 54% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.132649629617 0.150359130593 88% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0347130900735 0.0667264976115 52% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.1 14.1392134831 86% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 45.76 48.8420337079 94% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.1743820225 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.87 12.1639044944 106% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.08 8.38706741573 96% => OK
difficult_words: 137.0 100.480337079 136% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 11.8971910112 67% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 11.2143820225 78% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.7820224719 110% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.