As people rely more and more on technology to solve problems, the ability of
humans to think for themselves will surely deteriorate.
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 occurences would 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.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 8, column 1, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Will
..., chances are high that the employee will interact with a computer that processes...
^^^^
Line 30, column 50, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Likewise,
...able to the horse-and-buggy generation. Likewise dependence on oil has created nation-s...
^^^^^^^^
Line 43, column 1, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Most
...ons, inspiration can arrive from the most surprising corners. Jeffrey Sachs, one ...
^^^^
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: 3597.0 2235.4752809 161% => OK
No of words: 627.0 442.535393258 142% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.73684210526 5.05705443957 113% => OK
Fourth root words length: 5.00399520894 4.55969084622 110% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.09536221106 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: 7.0 6.24550561798 112% => OK
Article: 11.0 4.99550561798 220% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 0.0 3.10617977528 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 7.0 1.77640449438 394% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 11.0 4.38483146067 251% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
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: 32.242651433 60.3974514979 53% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 102.771428571 118.986275619 86% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.9142857143 23.4991977007 76% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.17142857143 5.21951772744 61% => OK
Paragraphs: 55.0 4.97078651685 1106% => Less paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 3.0 7.80617977528 38% => 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: 0.316524250648 0.243740707755 130% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0677784929683 0.0831039109588 82% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0617294570694 0.0758088955206 81% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0529481323457 0.150359130593 35% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0619800952988 0.0667264976115 93% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.6 14.1392134831 103% => 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: 15.72 12.1639044944 129% => 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?
---------------------
Maximum six 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.