As people rely more and more on technology to solve problems, the ability of humans to think for themselves will surely deteriorate.
The advancement of technology in this day is age is impressive. There are computers and smartphones in almost every household in the US, which drive and assist us in day-to-day living. Although the development of new technologies assist humans in performing mundane or redundant tasks, humans will still need to understand how to use these applications in order to solve their problems.
People who argue that technology disrupts the human’s ability to think, believe that computers may remove the need for a person to problem solve. Contrary to one hundred years ago, someone who would like to give and receive messages need not familiarize themselves with writing an address, placing a stamp, and walking to the post office. Instead, they could simply select a button on their smartphone and click “Send”. Although many users of email do not understand the underlying workings of this technology, they are able to access its user-friendly features in order to perform their duties. Thus, that individual has lost his or her ability to think about the nuances of sending and receiving mail.
However, thinking does play an important role even with the most advanced technology available. As advanced as automation may be, a person must still understand the big picture of why that technology is applicable. An email is only sent when one deliberately chooses to relay a message to another. In fact, a more accurate description of technology is a means, rather than an end. If one is diminished in their thought process, even the most current technology cannot fulfill their wishes, because computers cannot think for themselves. In addition, even fancy software encounters a plethora of problems quite often, and requires a human to fix the errors. This requires a deep and complex understanding of the inner workings of technology, even if this knowledge is esoteric. Moreover, for technology to advance, people are constantly imagining new creations and ways to solve future difficulties. Without this ingenuity, technology would quickly become obsolete.
The benefits that we have received from technology are only as promising as there are humans to use them. Technology is simply a tool that we can use to solve our goals, and doing so requires free thought and critical thinking. Without human application, these large, complex machines would simply be a junkyard of metallic objects.
| 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 |
- Educational institutions have a responsibility to dissuade students from pursuing fields of study in which they are unlikely to succeed. 66
- Teachers salaries should be based on the academic performance of their students 38
- Claim: In any field—business, politics, education, government—those in power should step down after five years. 66
- Over the past two years, the number of shoppers in Central Plaza has been steadily decreasing while the popularity of skateboarding has increased dramatically. Many Central Plaza store owners believe that the decrease in their business is due to the numbe 77
- Claim: In any field—business, politics, education, government—those in power should step down after five years. 66
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 822, Rule ID: PROGRESSIVE_VERBS[1]
Message: This verb is normally not used in the progressive form. Try a simple form instead.
...over, for technology to advance, people are constantly imagining new creations and ways to solve future ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, however, if, may, moreover, so, still, thus, in addition, in fact
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 19.5258426966 77% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.4196629213 113% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 14.8657303371 87% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 11.3162921348 88% => OK
Pronoun: 31.0 33.0505617978 94% => OK
Preposition: 48.0 58.6224719101 82% => 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: 2033.0 2235.4752809 91% => OK
No of words: 385.0 442.535393258 87% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.28051948052 5.05705443957 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.4296068528 4.55969084622 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.94144118341 2.79657885939 105% => OK
Unique words: 221.0 215.323595506 103% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.574025974026 0.4932671777 116% => OK
syllable_count: 640.8 704.065955056 91% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 6.24550561798 80% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.740449438202 0% => OK
Article: 5.0 4.99550561798 100% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 3.10617977528 193% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.77640449438 169% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.38483146067 91% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 20.2370786517 99% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 23.0359550562 82% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 37.5680715502 60.3974514979 62% => OK
Chars per sentence: 101.65 118.986275619 85% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.25 23.4991977007 82% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.5 5.21951772744 67% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 10.2758426966 68% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 5.13820224719 97% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.83258426966 166% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.244505281483 0.243740707755 100% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0640197635193 0.0831039109588 77% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0601032852415 0.0758088955206 79% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.129919245537 0.150359130593 86% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.027901645962 0.0667264976115 42% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.1 14.1392134831 93% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 43.73 48.8420337079 90% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.1743820225 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.34 12.1639044944 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.84 8.38706741573 105% => OK
difficult_words: 104.0 100.480337079 104% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 11.8971910112 97% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.2143820225 86% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Better to have 5/6 paragraphs with 3/4 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: reason 4. address both of the views presented for reason 4 (optional)
para 6: conclusion.
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.