Studies show that, as we’ve become more technically advanced, our health has deteriorated rapidly. Heart disease, cancer, diabetes, and virtually every major ailment are far more common today than they were thirty years ago. The primary reason for this deterioration is the sedentary lifestyle associated with today’s high-tech jobs. Clearly, our health will continue to decline as long as we persist in our technological advances.
The conclusion of this argument, “Clearly, our health will continue to decline as long as we persist in our technological advances,” rests weakly on three primary assumptions. First, it assumes that advances in medicine will not counteract the detrimental effects of a lack of exercise. Second, it requires the tacit belief that the effect of a proper diet on health is insignificant in comparison to the effects of a sedentary lifestyle. Finally, it presumes that whatever holds true for the past and present will also hold true for the future.
The argument assumes that the positive effects of regular exercise on health override any positive effects resulting from advances in medicine. As society becomes increasingly high tech, we might plausibly argue that medicine will similarly develop and advance. Nonetheless, the validity of the author’s argument depends on the idea that medicine will not advance as rapidly as technology or, at the very least, on the idea that any advance in medicine will have a relatively insignificant effect on health, compared to the effects of regular exercise. But what might happen if medicine progresses such that health care can counteract the effects of a sedentary lifestyle? Might we imagine a pill or procedure that could easily and effectively combat heart disease, diabetes, and other diseases linked to lack of exercise? If this occurs, whether our lives become more sedentary as a result of technology will not matter when it comes to our health, because medicine will offset the negative effects of a lack of exercise.
Similarly, the argument’s conclusion depends on the assumption that improvements in diet will not prevent or stave off the decline in wellness that results from working at a high-tech job. Whether it’s reasonable to expect our diets to improve as technology advances is irrelevant to this argument; the fact remains that the author assumes that diet has little to no impact on the general well-being of a person who gets no exercise. Yet a healthy diet could negate the effects of a sedentary lifestyle. In fact, if a good diet could be shown to improve one’s health, then it would be unreasonable to conclude that a sedentary lifestyle automatically leads to poor health and increased disease in everyone. There would be no easy way to show such a correlation between exercise and health. Indeed, a sedentary lifestyle coupled with a good diet might lead to good health.
The most significant assumption made by the author to arrive at the conclusion is that the past and present are reliable indicators of the future. Specifically, the author assumes that since our overall health has declined as technology has improved, this pattern will continue. Such an assumption is unwarranted; many trends reverse direction entirely or eventually cease. For example, the rapid rise and success of high-tech companies in the late ‘90s eventually came to a screeching halt, almost without warning. If the trend toward technological advancements and the sedentary lifestyles with which they are associated came to a similar halt, it would be illogical to conclude that our health would also continue to decline.
In sum, this argument relies heavily on its assumptions, perhaps too heavily. Denying any one of these assumptions results in a weakened or, in some cases, invalid conclusion. Nevertheless, the conclusion that our health is in jeopardy may in fact be true, despite its not being proven with the premises given and assumptions made by the author. To strengthen the argument, the author would need to not only address these three assumptions but also to more firmly establish a link between deteriorating health and technological advances. In the words of Hippocrates, “A wise man should consider that health is the greatest of human blessings.” An argument conclusively linking rising technology to failing health would be a strong argument indeed.
- Studies show that, as we’ve become more technically advanced, our health has deteriorated rapidly. Heart disease, cancer, diabetes, and virtually every major ailment are far more common today than they were thirty years ago. The primary reason for this 41
- Some people believe that teaching children at home is best for a child s development while others think that it is important for children to go to school Give your opinion 73
- Studies show that, as we’ve become more technically advanced, our health has deteriorated rapidly. Heart disease, cancer, diabetes, and virtually every major ailment are far more common today than they were thirty years ago. The primary reason for this 58
- Studies show that, as we’ve become more technically advanced, our health has deteriorated rapidly. Heart disease, cancer, diabetes, and virtually every major ailment are far more common today than they were thirty years ago. The primary reason for this 83
- Subjects such as Art Sport and Music are being dropped from the school curriculum for subjects such as Information Technology Many people children suffer as a result of these changes To what extent would you support or reject the idea of moving these subj 73
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 136, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma
Suggestion: , &apos
...we persist in our technological advances,' rests weakly on three primary assumpti...
^^^^^^
Line 9, column 296, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'premises'' or 'premise's'?
Suggestion: premises'; premise's
..., despite its not being proven with the premises given and assumptions made by the autho...
^^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'but', 'finally', 'first', 'if', 'may', 'nevertheless', 'nonetheless', 'second', 'similarly', 'so', 'then', 'well', 'for example', 'in fact', 'as a result', 'in some cases']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.224827586207 0.25644967241 88% => OK
Verbs: 0.136551724138 0.15541462614 88% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0855172413793 0.0836205057962 102% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0579310344828 0.0520304965353 111% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0289655172414 0.0272364105082 106% => OK
Prepositions: 0.125517241379 0.125424944231 100% => OK
Participles: 0.0275862068966 0.0416121511921 66% => OK
Conjunctions: 3.01131530776 2.79052419416 108% => OK
Infinitives: 0.031724137931 0.026700313972 119% => OK
Particles: 0.00137931034483 0.001811407834 76% => OK
Determiners: 0.113103448276 0.113004496875 100% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0344827586207 0.0255425247493 135% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0110344827586 0.0127820249294 86% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 3977.0 2731.13054187 146% => OK
No of words: 634.0 446.07635468 142% => OK
Chars per words: 6.27287066246 6.12365571057 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 5.01790360848 4.57801047555 110% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.417981072555 0.378187486979 111% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.343848580442 0.287650121315 120% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.230283911672 0.208842608468 110% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.157728706625 0.135150697306 117% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.01131530776 2.79052419416 108% => OK
Unique words: 294.0 207.018472906 142% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.463722397476 0.469332199767 99% => OK
Word variations: 57.3367827441 52.1807786196 110% => OK
How many sentences: 26.0 20.039408867 130% => OK
Sentence length: 24.3846153846 23.2022227129 105% => OK
Sentence length SD: 56.6807732761 57.7814097925 98% => OK
Chars per sentence: 152.961538462 141.986410481 108% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.3846153846 23.2022227129 105% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.653846153846 0.724660767414 90% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 3.58251231527 56% => OK
Readability: 58.7694734288 51.9672348444 113% => OK
Elegance: 1.69135802469 1.8405768891 92% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.203743340834 0.441005458295 46% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.10286841376 0.135418324435 76% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0604519440063 0.0829849096947 73% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.501810528554 0.58762219726 85% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.138303420268 0.147661913831 94% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0805348391063 0.193483328276 42% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0436255740864 0.0970749176394 45% => The sentences are too close to each other.
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.491476755652 0.42659136922 115% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0704069780374 0.0774707102158 91% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.148596268305 0.312017818177 48% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0243730611759 0.0698173142475 35% => The ideas may be duplicated in paragraphs.
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 8.33743842365 156% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 6.87684729064 160% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.82512315271 41% => OK
Positive topic words: 13.0 6.46551724138 201% => OK
Negative topic words: 7.0 5.36822660099 130% => OK
Neutral topic words: 2.0 2.82389162562 71% => OK
Total topic words: 22.0 14.657635468 150% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 Out of 6 -- The score is based on the average performance of 20,000 argument essays. This e-grader is not smart enough to check on arguments.
---------------------
Note: This is not the final score. 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.