As people rely more and more on technology to solve problems, the ability of humans to think for themselves will surely deteriorate.
With the development of technologies that can replace human beings in many tasks, there is an opinion worrying about the deteriorating of human's thinking abilities. From my point of view, we do not need to worry about the issue because in a new technology era, we human beings are not losing our abilities to think, but are developing different abilities that are necessary to accustom to the changing working and living environment.
First, I have to concede that people nowadays are less developed in some skills compared to their ancestors thanks to the technologies that can help us to solve many problems. For example, a history scholar does not have to memorize the entire documentary in his field because the materials are readily accessible in the database stored in his computer. We can also notice that school students are not as good at basic calculating skills as of ten years ago because they can rely on the help of calculators to do the onerous calculating tasks. Above is undeniable evidence that prove us at least some humans' precious thinking abilities are deteriorating because of lack of practice.
However, I would like to argue that the thinking abilities mentioned above, together with other abilities that can be replaced by machines, are only the most fundamental features of human brain, and the most essential thinking abilities, such as structural understanding, logical thinking, creative designing and understanding others' feelings, remain untouched by the technology. These abilities are even better trained with the help of technology because technology can save us from distractions of fundamental tasks. Expanding on the example of the history scholar who rely on database to store any search for documents, he can better focus on analysis of the materials and make full use of his creativity to discover new relationship between different factors. In this way, technologies are actually helping us to develop our thinking abilities in the most important ways.
Last, it is also worth mentioning that as the creator and user of technology, it is human that make things happen, not the machine. When the location of a star emerges on the computer screen after calculation, it seems like that it is technology that has found the star, but actually it is the scientists and engineers who build the telescope and the working station, as well as design and adjust the computer program, that should get the credit for this discovery.
In conclusion, I do not agree with the opinion in the argument that technology harms people's thinking abilities. Instead, technology shifts the focus of people's ability and makes it possible for us to concentrate on the most important aspects.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-01-29 | tarun9927 | 50 | view |
| 2020-01-22 | pranav_kanth | 50 | view |
| 2020-01-19 | vivek2upad | 66 | view |
| 2020-01-17 | sefeliz | 58 | view |
| 2020-01-13 | jason123 | 54 | view |
- The following appeared in an article written by Dr. Karp, an anthropologist."Twenty years ago, Dr. Field, a noted anthropologist, visited the island of Tertia andconcluded from his observations that children in Tertia were reared by an entire village 55
- Claim Governments must ensure that their major cities receive the financial support they need in order to thrive Reason It is primarily in cities that a nation s cultural traditions are preserved and generated 92
- Some people believe that government funding of the arts is necessary to ensure that the arts can flourish and be available to all people. Others believe that government funding of the arts threatens the integrity of the arts. 83
- In the United Stated, employees typically work five days a week for eight hours each day. 73
- People s attitudes are determined more by their immediate situation or surroundings than by society as a whole 87
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, first, however, if, so, well, at least, for example, in conclusion, such as, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 19.5258426966 87% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.4196629213 81% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 14.8657303371 74% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 11.3162921348 150% => OK
Pronoun: 43.0 33.0505617978 130% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 66.0 58.6224719101 113% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 12.9106741573 54% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2288.0 2235.4752809 102% => OK
No of words: 442.0 442.535393258 100% => OK
Chars per words: 5.17647058824 5.05705443957 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.58517132086 4.55969084622 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.88038906082 2.79657885939 103% => OK
Unique words: 224.0 215.323595506 104% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.506787330317 0.4932671777 103% => OK
syllable_count: 729.9 704.065955056 104% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 12.0 6.24550561798 192% => OK
Article: 1.0 4.99550561798 20% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.77640449438 169% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.38483146067 137% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 20.2370786517 69% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 31.0 23.0359550562 135% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 80.6203309042 60.3974514979 133% => OK
Chars per sentence: 163.428571429 118.986275619 137% => OK
Words per sentence: 31.5714285714 23.4991977007 134% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.71428571429 5.21951772744 148% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 7.80617977528 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 10.2758426966 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 5.13820224719 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.83258426966 21% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.232608533136 0.243740707755 95% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.087771737868 0.0831039109588 106% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0416641609788 0.0758088955206 55% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.136060021544 0.150359130593 90% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.045087435505 0.0667264976115 68% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 18.8 14.1392134831 133% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 31.55 48.8420337079 65% => OK
smog_index: 13.0 7.92365168539 164% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 16.6 12.1743820225 136% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.36 12.1639044944 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.03 8.38706741573 108% => OK
difficult_words: 108.0 100.480337079 107% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 21.0 11.8971910112 177% => OK
gunning_fog: 14.4 11.2143820225 128% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.7820224719 110% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.