As people rely more and more on technology to solve problems, the ability of humans to think for themselves will surely deteriorate.
Since pre-historic times, humans have been developing technology. This ranges from creating the wheel, to cars, airplanes, and Facebook. The statement suggests that the ability of humans to think for themselves will deteriorate due to reliance on technology to solve problems. This statement does not address all aspects of the correlation between technology and human cognition; humans do not depend entirely on technology, rather humans use technology as a tool to make problem solving more efficient and effective.
One example of how technology is merely a problem solving tool is the human use of statistical analysis programs such as SPSS and SAS. These programs take raw data (that was collected and inputted by humans), analyze the data, and then spit out a report on said data. These programs are used in a variety of fields, from the marketing department of a firm, to the epidemiology department of a prestigious university. In this example, the statistical analysis program is used by humans to extract reports in a quicker and more effective manner; where there are less errors and discrepencies than if a human were to analyze and create the report. Furthermore, the technology is not making any decision based on the data it analyzed because it is impossible for a program to make this choice. The human decides on the metrics that SPSS or SAS is going to analyze, and then it is the human that decides how that analysis is going to impact the problem at hand. This ultimately requires the human to think on what decision they are going to make; whether it be a decision on who to lay off, or a decision on the efficacy of a new medicine.
Another example of technology merely being a tool is international trade. Airplanes and cargo ships are used to transport goods from one country to another, something that is practically impossible for humans to do by themselves. It would be silly to think that humans can swim or fly across oceans with millions of tons of goods. Behind the airplanes and cargo ships are the people that operate them and that decide the ultimate destination of the goods being tranported. These decisions have to be well thought out and precise becuase these choices have the ability to impact national and international economies.
Cirtics of this point of view can state that reliance on technology can impact the individual. For example, they might say that texting language and autocorrect make it easier for individuals to disregard learning correct spelling and grammar. Texting language uses shortened versions of words to communicate, which might increase the change for someone to use this language in an educational or professional setting, and autocorrect might make people rely on this feature to correct their spelling and grammar. While in some cases this might hold true, this does not impact society as a whole because there are measures and corporate values that will always hold people's spelling and grammar accountable. For example, corporations and universities will not condone texting language to be used in e-mails and memos, therefore making it hard for individuals to fall completely indolent. Overall, technology helps humans in making the problem solving process more effective and efficient, and does not make their ability to think for themselves deteriorate.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 558, Rule ID: FEWER_LESS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'fewer'? The noun errors is countable.
Suggestion: fewer
... more effective manner; where there are less errors and discrepencies than if a huma...
^^^^
Line 4, column 214, Rule ID: AFFORD_VB[1]
Message: This verb is used with the infinitive: 'to correct'
Suggestion: to correct
...r for individuals to disregard learning correct spelling and grammar. Texting language ...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
furthermore, if, so, then, therefore, well, while, for example, such as, in some cases
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 25.0 19.5258426966 128% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.4196629213 89% => OK
Conjunction : 29.0 14.8657303371 195% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 11.3162921348 133% => OK
Pronoun: 41.0 33.0505617978 124% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 74.0 58.6224719101 126% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 12.9106741573 70% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2783.0 2235.4752809 124% => OK
No of words: 546.0 442.535393258 123% => OK
Chars per words: 5.09706959707 5.05705443957 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.83390555256 4.55969084622 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.81380499637 2.79657885939 101% => OK
Unique words: 250.0 215.323595506 116% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.457875457875 0.4932671777 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 900.0 704.065955056 128% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 6.24550561798 144% => OK
Article: 4.0 4.99550561798 80% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 6.0 1.77640449438 338% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 6.0 4.38483146067 137% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 20.2370786517 109% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 23.0359550562 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 51.3167324057 60.3974514979 85% => OK
Chars per sentence: 126.5 118.986275619 106% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.8181818182 23.4991977007 106% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.90909090909 5.21951772744 75% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 10.2758426966 107% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 5.13820224719 39% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 9.0 4.83258426966 186% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.308574293359 0.243740707755 127% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0888314533768 0.0831039109588 107% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.106133153612 0.0758088955206 140% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.194383582705 0.150359130593 129% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0939154865692 0.0667264976115 141% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.0 14.1392134831 106% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 47.12 48.8420337079 96% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.1743820225 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.6 12.1639044944 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.62 8.38706741573 103% => OK
difficult_words: 131.0 100.480337079 130% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 11.8971910112 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.2143820225 103% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.7820224719 110% => 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.