As people rely more and more on technology to solve problems, the ability of humans to think for themselves will surely deteriorate.
Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position.
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 sidewip 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 charged cell phone, technology seems to support young people’s worst tendencies to follow the crowed. Indeed, they have seemingly evolved into intergalactic conformity police. After all, today’s tech-aided 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 photo-document 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 consumerism 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 bandness 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.
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 : 14.0 14.8657303371 94% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 11.3162921348 62% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 41.0 33.0505617978 124% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 51.0 58.6224719101 87% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 12.9106741573 93% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2214.0 2235.4752809 99% => OK
No of words: 368.0 442.535393258 83% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 6.01630434783 5.05705443957 119% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.37987740619 4.55969084622 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.33781942532 2.79657885939 119% => OK
Unique words: 247.0 215.323595506 115% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.671195652174 0.4932671777 136% => OK
syllable_count: 685.8 704.065955056 97% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.9 1.59117977528 119% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 6.24550561798 96% => OK
Article: 1.0 4.99550561798 20% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 3.10617977528 97% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.77640449438 225% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 5.0 4.38483146067 114% => 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: 28.0 23.0359550562 122% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 137.33589454 60.3974514979 227% => The lengths of sentences changed so frequently.
Chars per sentence: 170.307692308 118.986275619 143% => OK
Words per sentence: 28.3076923077 23.4991977007 120% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.61538461538 5.21951772744 108% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
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: 0.0937030160932 0.243740707755 38% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0407950627792 0.0831039109588 49% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0371692771851 0.0758088955206 49% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0608599995508 0.150359130593 40% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0247713215677 0.0667264976115 37% => 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: 21.1 14.1392134831 149% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 17.68 48.8420337079 36% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 13.0 7.92365168539 164% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 17.8 12.1743820225 146% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 17.93 12.1639044944 147% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 11.2 8.38706741573 134% => OK
difficult_words: 144.0 100.480337079 143% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 30.0 11.8971910112 252% => Linsear_write_formula is high.
gunning_fog: 13.2 11.2143820225 118% => OK
text_standard: 18.0 11.7820224719 153% => 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: 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.