Technology reduces the amount of creativity in children.
Creativity, as we all know, for the majority of areas, is a crucial element. Due to the paramount importance of creativity in human beings' life, debates for elevating its effectiveness have always been among the top priorities of sociologists. In this regard, many believe that as the result of the presence of technology, the level of creativity among children reduces. Likewise, I believe that despite the positive effects of technology on individuals' lives, its influence on people’s creativity is controversial. I will delve into two conspicuous reasons to elaborate on my standpoint.
The first reason that makes me hold the belief that children are less creative compare to the past is related to their very beginning ages. When technology deprived them play physically. Undoubtedly, physical activities among children reduce dramatically. In other words, in comparison with their parents, the amount of time each kid spends in the yard or park declined remarkably. Scientifically speaking, the more time spends on physical plays, the more creativity achieves as a result. Children who have the chance to do play with their peers or parents show better creativity levels in adulthood. Unfortunately, nowadays, children spend a great amount of their time on video games or behind the cellphones. This lifestyle negatively reduces the ability of mind for creative thinking. Therefore, the dramatic diminish in the level of creativity can be assumed plausible in children these days. What would happen if parents did control the technology their children are exposing to? Needless to say, they can reduce the adverse effects of it on children’s creativity.
Another equally noteworthy reason to bear in mind is the existence of many facilities that make life both easier and more comfortable. This has adverse effects on different aspects of a person’s function, though. It means the less need for creativity feels, the fewer one thinks. Without a doubt, this existence of facilities neither is helpful nor beneficial. Although many critics may challenge this idea and debate that there is no need for creativity because every necessary amenity already had been invented, a great deal of evidence that presents a remarkable reduction in individuals' Intelligence quotient, show otherwise. Take my personal experience as an example. A couple of years ago, when I was in secondary school, I took part in an exam held in order to choose students with higher levels of IQ. I remember eighty percent of us were accepted in that exam. Surprisingly, the same exam is held for my younger sister this year, and just twenty percent of them are accepted. Thus, the level of IQ as a result of less need for creation is reduced as well.
To summarize, contemplating all remarks, we can safely conclude that the disadvantages of the existence of technology are remarkable in some areas. Technology not only brings less physical activity but also reduces the amount of mental activity, which, as a result, reduces the amount of creativity.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 133, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'beings'' or 'being's'?
Suggestion: beings'; being's
...mount importance of creativity in human beings life, debates for elevating its effecti...
^^^^^^
Line 3, column 141, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “When” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...s related to their very beginning ages. When technology deprived them play physicall...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, if, likewise, may, second, so, therefore, thus, well, as a result, in other words
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 15.1003584229 113% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 9.8082437276 92% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 13.8261648746 58% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 12.0 11.0286738351 109% => OK
Pronoun: 40.0 43.0788530466 93% => OK
Preposition: 69.0 52.1666666667 132% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 8.0752688172 161% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2557.0 1977.66487455 129% => OK
No of words: 487.0 407.700716846 119% => OK
Chars per words: 5.25051334702 4.8611393121 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.69766713281 4.48103885553 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.97423890884 2.67179642975 111% => OK
Unique words: 271.0 212.727598566 127% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.556468172485 0.524837075471 106% => OK
syllable_count: 820.8 618.680645161 133% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.51630824373 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 11.0 9.59856630824 115% => OK
Article: 11.0 3.08781362007 356% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 5.0 3.51792114695 142% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.86738351254 54% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.94265232975 101% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 28.0 20.6003584229 136% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 20.1344086022 84% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 45.3339648315 48.9658058833 93% => OK
Chars per sentence: 91.3214285714 100.406767564 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.3928571429 20.6045352989 84% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.53571428571 5.45110844103 65% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.5376344086 36% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 18.0 11.8709677419 152% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 3.85842293907 130% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.88709677419 102% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.390785848196 0.236089414692 166% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0891544935221 0.076458572812 117% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0836308009835 0.0737576698707 113% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.23543903914 0.150856017488 156% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.14227765677 0.0645574589148 220% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.0 11.7677419355 102% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 45.76 58.1214874552 79% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.10430107527 144% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 10.1575268817 109% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.87 10.9000537634 118% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.82 8.01818996416 110% => OK
difficult_words: 134.0 86.8835125448 154% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.002688172 105% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.0537634409 88% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.247311828 88% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Better to have 5 paragraphs with 3 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: conclusion.
So how to find out those reasons. There is a formula:
reasons == advantages or
reasons == disadvantages
for example, we can always apply 'save time', 'save/make money', 'find a job', 'make friends', 'get more information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.
or we can apply 'waste time', 'waste money', 'no job', 'make bad friends', 'get bad information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.
Rates: 90.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 27.0 Out of 30
---------------------
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.