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.
<p style="box-sizing: border-box; text-rendering: optimizelegibility; margin-bottom: 0.8em; color: rgb(21, 21, 21); font-family: "Open Sans", FontAwesome, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; white-space: normal;">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 sideswip one another in our SUV's.</p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; text-rendering: optimizelegibility; margin-bottom: 0.8em; color: rgb(21, 21, 21); font-family: "Open Sans", FontAwesome, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; white-space: normal;">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 PDA, and with the latest starlet gossip zipping from juicy Blackberry to teeny, turbo-charged cell phone, technology seems to support young people's worst tendencies to follow the crowd. 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 photodocument your fashion blunders! Is this adolescence, or paparazzi terrorist training camp?</p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; text-rendering: optimizelegibility; margin-bottom: 0.8em; color: rgb(21, 21, 21); font-family: "Open Sans", FontAwesome, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; white-space: normal;">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 comsumerism 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 badness these days. We're effective worker bees of ineffectiveness!</p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; text-rendering: optimizelegibility; margin-bottom: 0.8em; color: rgb(21, 21, 21); font-family: "Open Sans", FontAwesome, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; white-space: normal;">If T\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.</p>
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 1400, Rule ID: THE_SUPERLATIVE[2]
Message: A determiner is probably missing here: 'peoples the worst'.
Suggestion: peoples the worst
...hone, technology seems to support young peoples worst tendencies to follow the crowd. Indeed,...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 2658, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: hasn't
...s essay, it seems clear that technology hasnt impaired our thinking and problem-solvi...
^^^^^
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 : 10.0 19.5258426966 51% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 12.4196629213 24% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 14.8657303371 101% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 11.3162921348 62% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 43.0 33.0505617978 130% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 54.0 58.6224719101 92% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 12.9106741573 101% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3080.0 2235.4752809 138% => OK
No of words: 459.0 442.535393258 104% => OK
Chars per words: 6.71023965142 5.05705443957 133% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.62863751936 4.55969084622 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 4.21028460519 2.79657885939 151% => OK
Unique words: 277.0 215.323595506 129% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.60348583878 0.4932671777 122% => OK
syllable_count: 906.3 704.065955056 129% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 2.0 1.59117977528 126% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 6.24550561798 128% => OK
Article: 1.0 4.99550561798 20% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 5.0 1.77640449438 281% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 4.38483146067 91% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 11.0 20.2370786517 54% => 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: 41.0 23.0359550562 178% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 356.076113137 60.3974514979 590% => The lengths of sentences changed so frequently.
Chars per sentence: 280.0 118.986275619 235% => Less chars_per_sentence wanted.
Words per sentence: 41.7272727273 23.4991977007 178% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.63636363636 5.21951772744 127% => OK
Paragraphs: 1.0 4.97078651685 20% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 10.2758426966 78% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 5.13820224719 39% => 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: 0.0709157219825 0.243740707755 29% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0440038602674 0.0831039109588 53% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0399846100728 0.0758088955206 53% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0709157219825 0.150359130593 47% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0667264976115 0% => 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: 31.0 14.1392134831 219% => Automated_readability_index is high.
flesch_reading_ease: -3.98 48.8420337079 -8% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 17.1 7.92365168539 216% => Smog_index is high.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 24.0 12.1743820225 197% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 22.53 12.1639044944 185% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 11.17 8.38706741573 133% => OK
difficult_words: 160.0 100.480337079 159% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 65.0 11.8971910112 546% => Linsear_write_formula is high.
gunning_fog: 18.4 11.2143820225 164% => OK
text_standard: 31.0 11.7820224719 263% => The average readability is very high. Good job!
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Minimum four paragraphs wanted.
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.