As people rely more and more on technology to solve problems, the ability of humans to think for themselves will surely deteriorate.
Write a response in which you 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.
Will relying on technology result in less thinking ability in humans? While many beleive technology is detrimental for individual thinking ability of humans, some others assert that this is not the case. Personally, I completely disagree with that and contend that technology is not harmful to humans thinking ability for these reasons:
To begin, technology itself and day to day advancements of it show that people are actually thinking more and more. How would people who have less intellectual abilities than generations before them invent such sophisticated devices? Take mobilephones as an example, the daily advancements in the production of phones which have numerous complex features proves that human beings are, in fact using their brains more than anytime before.
Further, by using the technology that is invented by us, we can now think about solutions for our old problems, like how we can extend the lifespan of human beings. Technology has enabled us to rather than thinking about daily problems, focus on bigger problems which are much more crucial to us as an species. For example, humans have been able to extend life expectency from 50 years to 80 years in the last century. This would not have been possible if technology was deteroriating our ability to think for ourselves.
Next, It should be considered that technology itself, has brought new problems to solve. Today, we have some problems that were not peresent a 100 years ago, and we need to use our intellectual ability to solve these new problems. As an illustration, now we have to think about solving the traffic jams problem which are omnipresent in megacities. These modern-life problems are even more complex than the problems our ancestors used to have. We can observe that many people spend numerous years in schools and universities to gain enough knowledge to solve a very small part of our day to day problems now. So, technology has made, and will continue to make, new problems that need us to use our thinking abilities. With these problems around, we can be sure that athrophy will not happen to our intellectual ability.
Ultimately, it should be considered that some people might argue that we, humans, are now using our brains less as we rely on calculators for calculations, rely on microwave ovens for food preparations and even rely on smartphone calendars to remember our daily tasks. They might conclude that these are examples of technology harming our thinking ability. But it is not the case; Technology might has made such routine jobs easier for us, but it has not made us unable to think as we are inventing new devices, solving old problems and even solving new problems brought by these technologies everyday. Technology has not made us any less of thinkers we have always been.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 300, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'a' instead of 'an' if the following word doesn't start with a vowel sound, e.g. 'a sentence', 'a university'
Suggestion: a
...ms which are much more crucial to us as an species. For example, humans have been ...
^^
Line 9, column 113, Rule ID: COMP_THAN[1]
Message: Comparison requires 'than', not 'then' nor 'as'.
Suggestion: than
..., humans, are now using our brains less as we rely on calculators for calculations...
^^
Line 9, column 594, Rule ID: EVERYDAY_EVERY_DAY[3]
Message: 'Everyday' is an adjective. Did you mean 'every day'?
Suggestion: every day
... problems brought by these technologies everyday. Technology has not made us any less of...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, if, so, while, even so, for example, in fact
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 19.5258426966 108% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 12.4196629213 129% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 14.8657303371 67% => OK
Relative clauses : 18.0 11.3162921348 159% => OK
Pronoun: 62.0 33.0505617978 188% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 53.0 58.6224719101 90% => OK
Nominalization: 2.0 12.9106741573 15% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2334.0 2235.4752809 104% => OK
No of words: 465.0 442.535393258 105% => OK
Chars per words: 5.01935483871 5.05705443957 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.64369019777 4.55969084622 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.72186710315 2.79657885939 97% => OK
Unique words: 213.0 215.323595506 99% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.458064516129 0.4932671777 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 741.6 704.065955056 105% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 6.24550561798 160% => OK
Article: 1.0 4.99550561798 20% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => 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: 20.0 20.2370786517 99% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 23.0359550562 100% => OK
Sentence length SD: 58.6391294274 60.3974514979 97% => OK
Chars per sentence: 116.7 118.986275619 98% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.25 23.4991977007 99% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.95 5.21951772744 57% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 7.80617977528 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 10.2758426966 88% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 5.13820224719 156% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.83258426966 62% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.234147693209 0.243740707755 96% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0890301265154 0.0831039109588 107% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.061214243947 0.0758088955206 81% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.162392035465 0.150359130593 108% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0491287774434 0.0667264976115 74% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.8 14.1392134831 98% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.13 48.8420337079 99% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.1743820225 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.13 12.1639044944 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.14 8.38706741573 97% => OK
difficult_words: 99.0 100.480337079 99% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 11.8971910112 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.2143820225 100% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.7820224719 119% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.