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.
The statement linking technology negatively with free thinking plays on recent human experience over the past century. Surely there has been no time in history where the lived lives of people have changed more dramatically. A quick reflection on a typical day reveals how technology has revolutionized the world. Most people commute to work in an automobile that runs on an internal combustion engine. During the workday, chances are high that the employee will interact with a computer that processes information on silicon bridges that are .09 microns wide. Upon leaving home, family members will be reached through wireless networks that utilize satellites orbiting the earth. Each of these common occurrences could have been inconceivable at the turn of the 19th century.
The statement attempts to bridge these dramatic changes to a reduction in the ability for humans to think for themselves. The assumption is that an increased reliance on technology negates the need for people to think creatively to solve previous quandaries. Looking back at the introduction, one could argue that without a car, computer, or mobile phone, the hypothetical worker would need to find alternate methods of transport, information processing and communication. Technology short circuits this thinking by making the problems obsolete.
However, this reliance on technology does not necessarily preclude the creativity that marks the human species. The prior examples reveal that technology allows for convenience. The car, computer and phone all release additional time for people to live more efficiently. This efficiency does not preclude the need for humans to think for themselves. In fact, technology frees humanity to not only tackle new problems, but may itself create new issues that did not exist without technology. For example, the proliferation of automobiles has introduced a need for fuel conservation on a global scale. With increasing energy demands from emerging markets, global warming becomes a concern inconceivable to the horse-and-buggy generation. Likewise dependence on oil has created nation-states that are not dependent on taxation, allowing ruling parties to oppress minority groups such as women. Solutions to these complex problems require the unfettered imaginations of maverick scientists and politicians.
In contrast to the statement, we can even see how technology frees the human imagination. Consider how the digital revolution and the advent of the internet has allowed for an unprecedented exchange of ideas. WebMD, a popular internet portal for medical information, permits patients to self research symptoms for a more informed doctor visit. This exercise opens pathways of thinking that were previously closed off to the medical layman. With increased interdisciplinary interactions, inspiration can arrive from the most surprising corners. Jeffrey Sachs, one of the architects of the UN Millenium Development Goals, based his ideas on emergency care triage techniques. The unlikely marriage of economics and medicine has healed tense, hyperinflation environments from South America to Eastern Europe.
This last example provides the most hope in how technology actually provides hope to the future of humanity. By increasing our reliance on technology, impossible goals can now be achieved. Consider how the late 20th century witnessed the complete elimination of smallpox. This disease had ravaged the human race since prehistorical days, and yet with the technology of vaccines, free thinking humans dared to imagine a world free of smallpox. Using technology, battle plans were drawn out, and smallpox was systematically targeted and eradicated.
Technology will always mark the human experience, from the discovery of fire to the implementation of nanotechnology. Given the history of the human race, there will be no limit to the number of problems, both new and old, for us to tackle. There is no need to retreat to a Luddite attitude to new things, but rather embrace a hopeful posture to the possibilities that technology provides for new avenues of human imagination.
- “We can usually learn much more from people whose views we share than from people whose views contradict our own; disagreement can cause stress and inhibit learning .”Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with 90
- The graph below gives information about international tourist arrivals in five countries.Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant. 73
- The first graph below shows the weight (in tonnes) of fruit produced by a farm during each month in 2013, and also the amount (in tonnes) of fertiliser used. The second graph shows the volume of rainfall in each month (in millimetres.) 78
- The tables below give information about sales of Fairtrade*-labelled coffee and bananas in 1999 and 2004 in five European countries. Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant. 78
- The table below gives information about changes in modes of travel in England between 1985 and 2000. 73
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 736, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
...able to the horse-and-buggy generation. Likewise dependence on oil has created nation-st...
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, however, if, likewise, look, may, so, for example, in contrast, in fact, such as, in contrast to
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 19.5258426966 67% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 12.4196629213 129% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 14.8657303371 94% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 11.3162921348 124% => OK
Pronoun: 29.0 33.0505617978 88% => OK
Preposition: 87.0 58.6224719101 148% => OK
Nominalization: 31.0 12.9106741573 240% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3506.0 2235.4752809 157% => OK
No of words: 627.0 442.535393258 142% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.59170653907 5.05705443957 111% => OK
Fourth root words length: 5.00399520894 4.55969084622 110% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.09383908543 2.79657885939 111% => OK
Unique words: 354.0 215.323595506 164% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.564593301435 0.4932671777 114% => OK
syllable_count: 1113.3 704.065955056 158% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.59117977528 113% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 6.24550561798 96% => OK
Article: 10.0 4.99550561798 200% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 0.0 3.10617977528 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 5.0 1.77640449438 281% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 8.0 4.38483146067 182% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 35.0 20.2370786517 173% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 23.0359550562 74% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 31.7094719641 60.3974514979 53% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 100.171428571 118.986275619 84% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.9142857143 23.4991977007 76% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.17142857143 5.21951772744 61% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 4.97078651685 121% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 19.0 10.2758426966 185% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 5.13820224719 136% => OK
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: 0.264847891609 0.243740707755 109% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0617747127137 0.0831039109588 74% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0576556509191 0.0758088955206 76% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.138870755933 0.150359130593 92% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0449007737946 0.0667264976115 67% => OK
automated_readability_index: 13.9 14.1392134831 98% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 37.3 48.8420337079 76% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.1743820225 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.85 12.1639044944 122% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.77 8.38706741573 116% => OK
difficult_words: 210.0 100.480337079 209% => Less difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 11.8971910112 71% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 11.2143820225 78% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
Rates: 75.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.5 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.