As people rely more and more on technology to solve problems, the ability of humans to think for themselves will surely deteriorate
Our thinking ability improves as we use more and more advanced technology to solve problems.
Technology is being increasingly used to assist scientists and researches as they advent into their respective fields. As machines become more sophisticated, we can delegate the manual labor to them, hence untangling a complicated problem by abstracting out the easier portions. This allows us to focus our limited brain-power to the more difficult aspects of the task. Perhaps the most striking example is the 4-color theorem, which holds a pivotal position in the development of a key area of Mathematics called Graph Theory, was proven by computers! Essentially, mathematicians reduced the problem to various sub problems which could be solved by tedious case checking. The proof, that runs into hundreds of pages, would not have been possible in the 17th Century, when we did not have the required technology.
Historically, technology has always been a precusor to pathbreaking research, in domains that require a lot of thinking. The Hubble Space Telescope has been a technological marvel that has come as a boon to Theoritical Physicists looking to verify complicated theories about the deep universe. Advancements in medical equipments which can provide an accurate imaging of cancerous tumors has spurred research targeted at eradicated the dreaded disease. On a higher level, we can view technology as serving to push the boundaries of human thinking: the more complex the machines, the more one needs to think to improve it further!
However, not all is happy and dreamy in this world of rapid technological advancements. For a striking example, we need to look not too far than our schoolchildren. 5th Graders in many first world countries today cannot perform basic math computations without a calculator. There is an alarming trend of learners forgetting the basics due to their overdependence on technology.
Technology has been created by humans to further their advancements into various spheres of knowledge, and it has performed its task gracefully. As long as we do not become overdependent on technology, Humans would soar into the skies of intelligence.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, hence, however, if, look, so
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 19.5258426966 56% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.4196629213 64% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 14.8657303371 27% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 7.0 11.3162921348 62% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 23.0 33.0505617978 70% => OK
Preposition: 47.0 58.6224719101 80% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 12.9106741573 31% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1839.0 2235.4752809 82% => OK
No of words: 343.0 442.535393258 78% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.36151603499 5.05705443957 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.30351707066 4.55969084622 94% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.15119217992 2.79657885939 113% => OK
Unique words: 215.0 215.323595506 100% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.626822157434 0.4932671777 127% => OK
syllable_count: 567.0 704.065955056 81% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 6.24550561798 96% => OK
Article: 3.0 4.99550561798 60% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 3.10617977528 97% => 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: 15.0 20.2370786517 74% => 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: 22.0 23.0359550562 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 61.7530566045 60.3974514979 102% => OK
Chars per sentence: 122.6 118.986275619 103% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.8666666667 23.4991977007 97% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.33333333333 5.21951772744 45% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 7.80617977528 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 10.2758426966 58% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 5.13820224719 97% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.83258426966 83% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.210827977753 0.243740707755 86% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0687050675691 0.0831039109588 83% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.105404936568 0.0758088955206 139% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.148976158775 0.150359130593 99% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.137857036366 0.0667264976115 207% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.3 14.1392134831 108% => 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: 14.1 12.1639044944 116% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.48 8.38706741573 125% => OK
difficult_words: 125.0 100.480337079 124% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 11.8971910112 97% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.2143820225 96% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.7820224719 93% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.