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.
Technologies have been changed our lives a lot: travel to the opposite side of the earth within 12 hours, search for anything through the internet with several clicks, and contact others virtually. Although there are contradicting vies to these technologies, they did not seem to deteriorate the humans’ thinking ability.
Firstly, new technologies allow us to handle more complicated areas. Before the technologies developed, people had to do everything by their hands. However, through brilliant inventions, simple and repetitive works have been shifted from humans’ jobs to machines’ jobs. Thus, people have got more free time and started spending their time handling more complicated ones. For example, 50 years ago, the most time-consuming task at the institutions of weather forecasting was manually calculating the probabilities of clouds’ movement. However, for the sake of the invention of the computer, they do not need to spend a lot amount of their time calculating something by their hands anymore, and they more focus on analyzing the calculated results. As a result, they have developed better techniques to predict weather more precisely. Not confined to this field but also in various fields such as economics, science, and others, this kind of change has happened. Thus, it shows technology actually made us more brilliantly rather than deteriorating our thinking ability.
Secondly, for the sake of technologies, people now solve unsolved problems in many areas. Technologies allowed us to easily access hugely accumulated information through the internet. The orderly archived information is beneficial in that researchers can easily look through the previous studies and find the unsolved problems and previous trials for resolving them. Based on the information, researchers can minimize the risk of repeating failure and more easily solve unsolved problems. New medicines for the diseases, which have never been considered curable, and renewable energy solutions are possible examples. Thus, in fact, technologies allow us to develop our thinking ability to further steps rather than deteriorating it.
There has been active discussion about whether the effect of technology on human beings’ thinking ability is advantageous or disadvantageous. Some might say that high reliance on technology deteriorated human beings' thinking ability not allowing them to solve just a simple problem themselves. However, as mentioned in this article, technology has helped us to think more brilliantly. Thus, the given prompt cannot be agreed upon.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, first, firstly, however, if, look, second, secondly, so, thus, for example, in fact, kind of, such as, as a result
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: 5.0 12.4196629213 40% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 14.8657303371 74% => OK
Relative clauses : 3.0 11.3162921348 27% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 27.0 33.0505617978 82% => OK
Preposition: 47.0 58.6224719101 80% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 12.9106741573 46% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2187.0 2235.4752809 98% => OK
No of words: 387.0 442.535393258 87% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.6511627907 5.05705443957 112% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.43534841618 4.55969084622 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.02388076316 2.79657885939 108% => OK
Unique words: 229.0 215.323595506 106% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.59173126615 0.4932671777 120% => OK
syllable_count: 673.2 704.065955056 96% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 6.24550561798 80% => OK
Article: 3.0 4.99550561798 60% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 3.10617977528 129% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.77640449438 225% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 4.38483146067 68% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 20.2370786517 104% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 23.0359550562 78% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 41.4647351739 60.3974514979 69% => OK
Chars per sentence: 104.142857143 118.986275619 88% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.4285714286 23.4991977007 78% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.42857142857 5.21951772744 123% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 7.80617977528 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 10.2758426966 117% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 5.13820224719 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.83258426966 124% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.26994768168 0.243740707755 111% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0787470155083 0.0831039109588 95% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0422783395109 0.0758088955206 56% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.163455027999 0.150359130593 109% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0384011795388 0.0667264976115 58% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.4 14.1392134831 102% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 44.75 48.8420337079 92% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.1743820225 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.49 12.1639044944 127% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.14 8.38706741573 109% => OK
difficult_words: 113.0 100.480337079 112% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 11.8971910112 76% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.2143820225 82% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => 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: 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.