As people rely more and more on technology to solve problems, the ability of humans to think for themselves will surely deteriorate.
The statement points out the fact that the increasingly dependence on technology would reduce people’s opportunities to practice their brain. I do agree with this view. But I cannot fully accept the conclusive tones that this will surely undermine humans’ thinking for the reason that this perspective disregards abundant meanings of thinking and the endeavor humans make to enhance their ability to think.
To have a closer look at this statement, I accept the underlying meaning in the sentences, that is, a worry about the overuse of technology which would exploit humans’ training on the abilities to solve problems ourselves. This worry is certainly reasonable. Decades ago, we had to do complicate calculations by hand, using tons of papers and time. The process was really tiring and demanding, while our ability to think meticulously was strictly practiced. Today, however, when one is asked to do some calculations, the first action is always to seek for a calculator. A survey among several high school students indicates that more than 90 percent of students have to refer to calculators when they are required to solve even pretty calculations. In terms of those facts, our ability to think of figures in mind and process them does deteriorate. Indeed, the same things happen in other fields. When we increasingly rely on the colorful TV and put the paper books aside, stopping imagining plots of a novel, our imagination tends to weaken quietly.
However, do those facts necessarily lead to the deterioration of humans’ independent thinking ability? The answer given in the statement might be presumptuous thus I cannot stand by it without reservation.
For one thing, not all aspects of humans’ thinking would be weakened. Actually, as humans arrange the tiring and time-wasting jobs to technology, they have more time and energy to think over on more important things. For instance, a scientist could just throw the numerous data to his computer to generate a result of an equation through the hard calculation. With the time saved, he might consider carefully on how his theory could be enhanced or how an equation is deduced, which might never be done by computers. As a consequence, although the scientist could not do hard calculations, he understood more thoroughly the theoretical framework, with a stronger logic skill and comprehensive thinking. In this term, humans’ ability to think for ourselves is even strengthened.
For another, even considering those thinking abilities such as doing calculations which might be weakened by dependence on technology, humans’ have some strategies to prevent the decline from happening. In many schools, calculators are only allowed to use for the students who are in grades high enough. This could guarantee the students a mature calculation skill by forcing them to calculate for themselves when in low grade. Similarly, some social organizations are trying their best to publicize an away-from-technology campaign. Activities such as no-television day do attract lots of people. We do not know how much it will work, but they do play a positive role in enhancing humans’ independent thinking.
To sum up, the worry that overdoing dependence on technology might undermine human’s ability to think for themselves is reasonable indeed. But the conclusive remarks would be unsubstantiated due to disregarding other aspects of thinking as well as people’s actions to prevent the bad things to happen.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 1057, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ur imagination tends to weaken quietly. However, do those facts necessarily lead...
^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['actually', 'but', 'first', 'however', 'look', 'really', 'regarding', 'similarly', 'so', 'then', 'thus', 'well', 'while', 'for instance', 'such as', 'as well as', 'for one thing', 'to sum up']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.227554179567 0.240241500013 95% => OK
Verbs: 0.170278637771 0.157235817809 108% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0665634674923 0.0880659088768 76% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0588235294118 0.0497285424764 118% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0433436532508 0.0444667217837 97% => OK
Prepositions: 0.102167182663 0.12292977631 83% => OK
Participles: 0.046439628483 0.0406280797675 114% => OK
Conjunctions: 3.18783994922 2.79330140395 114% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0448916408669 0.030933414821 145% => OK
Particles: 0.0030959752322 0.0016655270985 186% => OK
Determiners: 0.0928792569659 0.0997080785238 93% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0263157894737 0.0249443105267 105% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0170278637771 0.0148568991511 115% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 3523.0 2732.02544248 129% => OK
No of words: 553.0 452.878318584 122% => OK
Chars per words: 6.37070524412 6.0361032391 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.84932490483 4.58838876751 106% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.385171790235 0.366273622748 105% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.31103074141 0.280924506359 111% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.24773960217 0.200843997647 123% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.179023508137 0.132149295362 135% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.18783994922 2.79330140395 114% => OK
Unique words: 291.0 219.290929204 133% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.526220614828 0.48968727796 107% => OK
Word variations: 65.2275874386 55.4138127331 118% => OK
How many sentences: 28.0 20.6194690265 136% => OK
Sentence length: 19.75 23.380412469 84% => OK
Sentence length SD: 53.2042056608 59.4972553346 89% => OK
Chars per sentence: 125.821428571 141.124799967 89% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.75 23.380412469 84% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.642857142857 0.674092028746 95% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 4.94800884956 121% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.21349557522 19% => OK
Readability: 50.853074141 51.4728631049 99% => OK
Elegance: 1.38068181818 1.64882698954 84% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.513004638225 0.391690518653 131% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.0692364192277 0.123202303941 56% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0614006459598 0.077325440228 79% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.458100845419 0.547984918172 84% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.162196232995 0.149214159877 109% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.149748771559 0.161403998019 93% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.091530275339 0.0892212321368 103% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.328840972003 0.385218514788 85% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.043345114301 0.0692045440612 63% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.301419304616 0.275328986314 109% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0847260307672 0.0653680567796 130% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 15.0 10.4325221239 144% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 5.30420353982 170% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.88274336283 82% => OK
Positive topic words: 10.0 7.22455752212 138% => OK
Negative topic words: 6.0 3.66592920354 164% => OK
Neutral topic words: 3.0 2.70907079646 111% => OK
Total topic words: 19.0 13.5995575221 140% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: This is not the final score. 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.