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.
As people rely more and more on technology to solve problems, the ability of humans to think for themselves will not, on the whole, deteriorate. While humanity’s increasing reliance on technology may decrease its ability to complete basic or remedial cognitive tasks, such as simple addition or multiplication, this increased reliance on technology may increase humanity’s problem-solving and critical thinking abilities for several reasons.
Pieces of technology are tools, not beings. Complex machines, such as computers, only execute commands when given the proper inputs from people. Computers cannot “think” in the sense that they independently produce plans and execute these plans. Like other advanced pieces of technology, computers require external input before they can execute its programmed commands. This means that even the most advanced forms of technology only succeed in solving problems insofar as people instruct the machines in executing predetermined solutions to problems. Without a person exercising his critical-thinking skills, creating a solution, and inputting that solution into a computer, the computer cannot solve a given problem. In this way, the use of technology to implement solutions to problems does not diminish an individual’s ability to think for himself and create a solution to that problem.
Similarly, people will need to continue thinking for themselves if they are to continue creating more advanced forms of technology. Machines are not yet advanced enough to create newer, more complex machines, and as such, people will need to engage in critical thinking and more advanced problem-solving as they attempt to create more advanced machines to solve problems. In this way, the creation and refinement of complex machines is, in itself, a problem that requires a solution, and because there will always be a need for more complex machines to solve ever-increasingly complex problems, people must continue to think for themselves.
Some will argue that the reliance on technology will result in a deterioration of people’s ability to think for themselves. These individuals are correct, yet only insofar as people’s ability to complete simple tasks is concerned. Many people, myself included, rely on calculators to complete basic arithmetic operations. I rarely calculate the tip at a restaurant by hand, and I suppose that this could mean that I am not thinking for myself. Still, the increasing reliance of people on technology does not diminish humanity’s capacity for independent thought overall. Rather, the increasing reliance on technology increases humanity’s capacity for independent thought, as technology frees individuals from wasting their mental resources on simple tasks. Because individuals spend much less time solving basic problems, such as the tip at a restaurant, individuals are free to grapple with more consequential and complex matters, such as arriving at a cure for chronic illnesses like cancer. Overall, humanity’s increasing reliance on technology expands humanity’s capacity for independent and complex thought by freeing humanity to challenge its intellect with more nuanced problems.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
As people rely more and more on technolo...
^^^^
Line 11, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... continue to think for themselves. Some will argue that the reliance on tec...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
if, may, similarly, so, still, while, i suppose, such as, on the whole
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 19.5258426966 41% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 12.4196629213 129% => OK
Conjunction : 16.0 14.8657303371 108% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 11.3162921348 80% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 35.0 33.0505617978 106% => OK
Preposition: 62.0 58.6224719101 106% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 12.9106741573 124% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2759.0 2235.4752809 123% => OK
No of words: 475.0 442.535393258 107% => OK
Chars per words: 5.80842105263 5.05705443957 115% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.66845742379 4.55969084622 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.29673724374 2.79657885939 118% => OK
Unique words: 215.0 215.323595506 100% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.452631578947 0.4932671777 92% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 862.2 704.065955056 122% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.59117977528 113% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 6.24550561798 80% => OK
Article: 7.0 4.99550561798 140% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 3.10617977528 129% => OK
Conjunction: 5.0 1.77640449438 281% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 7.0 4.38483146067 160% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 20.2370786517 99% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 23.0359550562 100% => OK
Sentence length SD: 63.794102392 60.3974514979 106% => OK
Chars per sentence: 137.95 118.986275619 116% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.75 23.4991977007 101% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.5 5.21951772744 67% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 10.2758426966 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 5.13820224719 97% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.83258426966 103% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.313352928699 0.243740707755 129% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.118730506891 0.0831039109588 143% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.113439594739 0.0758088955206 150% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.224136334981 0.150359130593 149% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0859020838666 0.0667264976115 129% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.8 14.1392134831 126% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 31.21 48.8420337079 64% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.6 12.1743820225 120% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.71 12.1639044944 137% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.87 8.38706741573 106% => OK
difficult_words: 123.0 100.480337079 122% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 11.8971910112 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.2143820225 100% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => 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.