As people rely more and more on technology to solve problems, the ability of humans to think for themselves will surely deteriorate.
Technological growth has become a key part of our existence, as it helps us in solving many problems. The thesis opines that as people rely more and more on technology to solve problems, their abilities to think deteriorates. I strongly disagree with this opinion for three reasons.
To begin, people have more time for creative thinking, rather than routines as they depend on technology to solve problems. For example, the money-counting machine is developed to help bankers to count money. It saves their time and gives them room to focus on other aspects of their work that involves more thinking. They have more time balance accounts, to attend to more customers effectively and speedily, and make decisions that affect the whole banking system. They rather have more time to do more thinking rather than getting caught in the cycle of routines. One thing machines cannot do is to think. Most machines help in doing routines, giving people who depend on technology more room to think.
Secondly, technology development is certainly a product of innovative thinking. The world is fast advancing technology-wise because people have more time to think innovatively. For instance, a software engineer can create new software that can solve existing problems in new ways because he is depending on the computer to program. The development of an ATM machine, for example, is a product of the creative thinking of a programmer relying on his computer to work. Dependence on the computer for programming is what gives the software engineer opportunity to think of innovative ways of solving other problems. It is therefore clear that as people rely more and more on technology, they have more room and opportunity for creative thinking.
Others may argue using the law of use and disuse, that the more people use their brains to think, the better they think. While the law holds true, is that not the more reason people’s thinking improves as they depend on technology? When people engage rely more on creative and innovative thinking to create technologies to solve problems, the better they think. This is the same reason why scientists like Albert Einstein spent much of their lives innovating ideas that are still useful today: the more they innovated, the better their thinking. Research on Einstein’s brain showed that the more one thinks with his brain, the better he thinks.
In conclusion, when people rely more on technology to solve problems, they have more time, and relief from routine work to think creatively. The more they think, the better they think. People should therefore use technology more and more so that new discoveries can emerge.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 291, Rule ID: PROGRESSIVE_VERBS[1]
Message: This verb is normally not used in the progressive form. Try a simple form instead.
...xisting problems in new ways because he is depending on the computer to program. The develop...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 354, Rule ID: ATM_MACHINE[1]
Message: This phrase is redundant ('M' stands for 'machine'). Use simply 'ATM'.
Suggestion: ATM
...puter to program. The development of an ATM machine, for example, is a product of the creat...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
may, second, secondly, so, still, therefore, while, for example, for instance, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 19.5258426966 56% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 12.4196629213 48% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 14.8657303371 67% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 11.3162921348 115% => OK
Pronoun: 40.0 33.0505617978 121% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 53.0 58.6224719101 90% => 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: 2228.0 2235.4752809 100% => OK
No of words: 437.0 442.535393258 99% => OK
Chars per words: 5.09839816934 5.05705443957 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.57214883401 4.55969084622 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.70710059171 2.79657885939 97% => OK
Unique words: 193.0 215.323595506 90% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.441647597254 0.4932671777 90% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 699.3 704.065955056 99% => 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: 11.0 4.99550561798 220% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 4.0 3.10617977528 129% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.77640449438 113% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.38483146067 68% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 20.2370786517 119% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 23.0359550562 78% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 33.8843775458 60.3974514979 56% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 92.8333333333 118.986275619 78% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.2083333333 23.4991977007 77% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.83333333333 5.21951772744 73% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 18.0 10.2758426966 175% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 5.13820224719 19% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.83258426966 103% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.440373984787 0.243740707755 181% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.164729899255 0.0831039109588 198% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.109253953444 0.0758088955206 144% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.311827045767 0.150359130593 207% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0459626360442 0.0667264976115 69% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.7 14.1392134831 83% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 48.8420337079 109% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.1743820225 85% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.3 12.1639044944 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.85 8.38706741573 94% => OK
difficult_words: 92.0 100.480337079 92% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 11.8971910112 71% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.2143820225 82% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.