As people rely more and more on technology to solve problems, the ability of humans to think for themselves will surely deteriorate.
This topic raises the controversial issue of people relying more and more on technology will deteriorate human thinking process. It is obviously true that humans became feckless as they started to depend on technology more and more like people don’t do small calculations instead, they prefer to use calculator. Nevertheless, I strongly feel that using technology humans can do complex research. Thus, I generally censure with the opinion that technology is deteriorating humans and would argue that it is eventually enhancing human’s life and their thinking process.
First, technology is the base for creating or developing any powerful innovation. I would like to point out that, we are living in such an era that we want to provision automation in every possible field. To illustrate, let us look at the example of Alexa, which is personal help build by Amazon. So, Alexa can be considered as a resource, which helps humans to in performing their daily work. So clearly technology is saving lots of human effort, which in result can be used to some powerful and useful automation. In this circumstance, obviously technology is not deteriorating human thinking process instead, it is helping humans to automate thing and to create powerful innovations. Consequently, it is obvious that technology is enhancing humans thinking process.
Furthermore, I would say that technology is not stopping humans to think instead, it is increasing their computing power. Specifically, we are living in the era of quantum computing and we all know that this computing requires powerful technology. Both common sense and personal experience have told us that technology is not deteriorating human thought process because it is helping humans in creating powerful technology, that will further enhance human life and development Hence, all the evidence above demonstrates that technology is not deteriorating human thinking process.
Admittedly, I totally agree with the point that technology is making humans feckless instead of saying it is deteriorating humans. This is true especially when it comes to laziness, technology is impacting negative effect on human thought process. However, the above argument does not join an enough support to claim that technology is deteriorating human thinking.
In conclusion to this controversial issue, I would say that there are cases where one can say that technology impacting negatively human thought process but on the other side if we see that technology is helping/supporting humans to enhance their computing power. Hence, technology is not deteriorating human thinking.
| 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 |
- Governments should offer a free university education to any student who has been admitted to a university but who cannot afford the tuition 66
- As people rely more and more on technology to solve problems, the ability of humans to think for themselves will surely deteriorate. 66
- Governments should offer a free university education to any student who has been admitted to a university but who cannot afford the tuition 58
- To understand the most important characteristics of a society, one must study its major cities. 50
- Educational institutions have a responsibility to dissuade students from pursuing fields of study in which they are unlikely to succeed. 83
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 477, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...rther enhance human life and development Hence, all the evidence above demonstrat...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, consequently, first, furthermore, hence, however, if, look, nevertheless, so, thus, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 27.0 19.5258426966 138% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.4196629213 81% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 14.8657303371 74% => OK
Relative clauses : 22.0 11.3162921348 194% => OK
Pronoun: 49.0 33.0505617978 148% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 40.0 58.6224719101 68% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 12.9106741573 77% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2223.0 2235.4752809 99% => OK
No of words: 405.0 442.535393258 92% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.48888888889 5.05705443957 109% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.48604634366 4.55969084622 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.13574025407 2.79657885939 112% => OK
Unique words: 193.0 215.323595506 90% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.476543209877 0.4932671777 97% => OK
syllable_count: 702.0 704.065955056 100% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 16.0 6.24550561798 256% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 1.0 4.99550561798 20% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 3.10617977528 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.38483146067 68% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 20.2370786517 94% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 23.0359550562 91% => OK
Sentence length SD: 65.3430750082 60.3974514979 108% => OK
Chars per sentence: 117.0 118.986275619 98% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.3157894737 23.4991977007 91% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.36842105263 5.21951772744 103% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 10.2758426966 117% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 5.13820224719 97% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.83258426966 41% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.269384277088 0.243740707755 111% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.106608138387 0.0831039109588 128% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0917426174619 0.0758088955206 121% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.173247252554 0.150359130593 115% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0881025328979 0.0667264976115 132% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.1 14.1392134831 107% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.7 48.8420337079 85% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.1743820225 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.56 12.1639044944 120% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.15 8.38706741573 97% => OK
difficult_words: 89.0 100.480337079 89% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 11.8971910112 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.2143820225 93% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.7820224719 110% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.