Essay Responses and Reader Commentary

Essay Response * – Score 6
The statement linking technology negatively with free thinking plays on recent human experience over the
past century. Surely there has been no time in history where the lived lives of people have changed more
dramatically. A quick reflection on a typical day reveals how technology has revolutionized the world.
Most people commute to work in an automobile that runs on an internal combustion engine. During the
workday, chances are high that the employee will interact with a computer that processes information on
silicon bridges that are .09 microns wide. Upon leaving home, family members will be reached through
wireless networks that utilize satellites orbiting the earth. Each of these common occurences would have
been inconceivable at the turn of the 19th century.
The statement attempts to bridge these dramatic changes to a reduction in the ability for humans to think
for themselves. The assumption is that an increased reliance on technology negates the need for people to
think creatively to solve previous quandaries. Looking back at the introduction, one could argue that
without a car, computer, or mobile phone, the hypothetical worker would need to find alternate methods of
transport, information processing, and communication. Technology short circuits this thinking by making
the problems obsolete.
However, this reliance on technology does not necessarily preclude the creativity that marks the human
species. The prior examples reveal that technology allows for convenience. The car, computer, and phone
all release additional time for people to live more efficiently. This efficiency does not preclude the need for
humans to think for themselves. In fact, technology frees humanity to not only tackle new problems, but
may itself create new issues that did not exist without technology. For example, the proliferation of
automobiles has introduced a need for fuel conservation on a global scale. With increasing energy
demands from emerging markets, global warming becomes a concern inconceivable to the horse-and-buggy
generation. Likewise dependence on oil has created nation-states that are not dependent on taxation,
allowing ruling parties to oppress minority groups such as women. Solutions to these complex problems
require the unfettered imaginations of maverick scientists and politicians.
In contrast to the statement, we can even see how technology frees the human imagination. Consider how
the digital revolution and the advent of the internet has allowed for an unprecedented exchange of ideas.
WebMD, a popular internet portal for medical information, permits patients to self research symptoms for a
more informed doctor visit. This exercise opens pathways of thinking that were previously closed off to
the medical layman. With increased interdisciplinary interactions, inspiration can arrive from the most
surprising corners. Jeffrey Sachs, one of the architects of the UN Millenium Development Goals, based his
ideas on emergency care triage techniques. The unlikely marriage of economics and medicine has healed
tense, hyperinflation environments from South America to Eastern Europe.
This last example provides the most hope in how technology actually provides hope to the future of
humanity. By increasing our reliance on technology, impossible goals can now be achieved. Consider how
the late 20th century witnessed the complete elimination of smallpox. This disease had ravaged the human
race since prehistorical days, and yet with the technology of vaccines, free thinking humans dared to
imagine a world free of smallpox. Using technology, battle plans were drawn out, and smallpox was
systematically targeted and eradicated.
Technology will always mark the human experience, from the discovery of fire to the implementation of
nanotechnology. Given the history of the human race, there will be no limit to the number of problems,
both new and old, for us to tackle. There is no need to retreat to a Luddite attitude to new things, but rather
embrace a hopeful posture to the possibilities that technology provides for new avenues of human
imagination.
* All responses in this publication are reproduced exactly as written, including errors, misspellings, etc., if
any.
Reader Commentary for Essay Response – Score 6
The author of this essay stakes out a clear and insightful position on the issue and follows the specific
instructions by presenting reasons to support that position. The essay cogently argues that technology does
not decrease our ability to think for ourselves. It merely provides “additional time for people to live more
efficiently.” In fact, the problems that have developed alongside the growth of technology (pollution,
political unrest in oil producing nations) actually call for more creative thinking, not less. In further
examples, the essay shows how technology allows for the linking of ideas that may never have been
connected in the past (like medicine and economic models), pushing people to think in new ways.
Examples are persuasive and fully developed; reasoning is logically sound and well-supported.
Ideas in the essay are connected logically, with effective transitions used both between paragraphs
(“However,” or “In contrast to the statement”) and within paragraphs. Sentence structure is varied and
complex, and the essay clearly demonstrates facility with the “conventions of standard written English (i.e.,
grammar, usage, and mechanics)” (see Issue Scoring Guide, p. 30), with only minor errors appearing.
Thus, this essay meets all the requirements for receiving a top score, a 6.
Essay Response – Score 5
Surely many of us have expressed the following sentiment, or some variation on it, during our daily
commutes to work: "People are getting so stupid these days!" Surrounded as we are by striding and strident
automatons with cell phones glued to their ears, PDA's gripped in their palms, and omniscient, omnipresent
CNN gleaming in their eyeballs, it's tempting to believe that technology has isolated and initialized us,
essentially transforming us into dependent, conformist morons best equipped to sideswipe one another in our
SUV's.
Furthermore, hanging around with the younger, pre-commute generation, whom tech-savviness seems to
have rendered lethal, is even less reassuring. With "Teen People" style trends shooting through the air from
tiger-striped PDA to zebra-striped PDA, and with the latest starlet gossip zipping from juicy Blackberry to
teeny, turbo-charged cell phone, technology seems to support young people's worst tendencies to follow the
crowd. Indeed, they have seemingly evolved into intergalactic conformity police. After all, today's tech aided
teens are, courtesy of authentic, hands-on video games, literally trained to kill; courtesy of chat and
instant text messaging, they have their own language; they even have tiny cameras to efficiently
photo document your fashion blunders! Is this adolescence, or paparazzi terrorist training camp?
With all this evidence, it's easy to believe that tech trends and the incorporation of technological wizardry
into our everyday lives have served mostly to enforce conformity, promote dependence, heighten
comsumerism and materialism, and generally create a culture that values self-absorption and personal
entitlement over cooperation and collaboration. However, I argue that we are merely in the inchoate stages
of learning to live with technology while still loving one another. After all, even given the examples
provided earlier in this essay, it seems clear that technology hasn't impaired our thinking and problem solving
capacities. Certainly it has incapacitated our behavior and manners; certainly our values have taken
a severe blow. However, we are inarguable more efficient in our badness these days. We're effective
worker bees of ineffectiveness!
If T\technology has so increased our senses of self-efficacy that we can become veritable agents of the
awful, virtual CEO's of selfishness, certainly it can be beneficial. Harnessed correctly, technology can
improve our ability to think and act for ourselves. The first challenge is to figure out how to provide
technology users with some direly-needed direction.
Reader Commentary for Essay Response – Score 5
The language of this essay clearly illustrates both its strengths and weaknesses. The flowery and
sometimes uncannily keen descriptions are often used to powerful effect, but at other times, this descriptive
language results in errors in syntax. See, for example, the problems of parallelism in the second to last
sentence of paragraph 2 (“After all, today’s tech-aided teens...”).
There is consistent evidence of facility with syntax and complex vocabulary (“Surrounded as we are by
striding and strident automatons with cell phones glued to their ears, PDA’s gripped in their palms, and
omniscient, omnipresent CNN gleaming in their eyeballs, it’s tempting to believe...”). Such lucid prose,
however, is often countered with an over-reliance upon abstractions and tangential reasoning (what does
the fact that video games “literally train [teens] to kill” have to do with the use or deterioration of thinking
abilities, for example).
Because this essay takes a complex approach to the issue (arguing, in effect, that technology neither
enhances nor reduces our ability to think for ourselves, but can be used to do one or the other depending on
the user) and because the author makes use of “appropriate vocabulary and sentence variety” (see Issue
Scoring Guide, p. 30), a score of 5 is appropriate.
Essay Response – Score 4

In all actuality, I think it is more probable that our bodies will surely deteriorate long before our minds do
in any significant amount. Who can't say that technology has made us lazier, but that's the key word, lazy,
not stupid. The ever increasing amount of technology that we incorporate into our daily lives makes people
think and learn every day, possibly more than ever before. Our abilities to think, learn, philosophize, etc.
may even reach limits never dreamed of before by average people. Using technology to solve problems will
continue to help us realize our potential as a human race.
If you think about it, using technology to solve more complicating problems gives humans a chance to
expand their thinking and learning, opening up whole new worlds for many people. Many of these people
are glad for the chance to expand their horizons by learning more, going to new places, and trying new
things. If it wasn't for the invention of new technological devices, I wouldn't be sitting at this computer
trying to philosophize about technology. It would be extremely hard for children in much poorer countries
to learn and think for themselves with out the invention of the internet. Think what an impact the printing
press, a technologically superior mackine at the time, had on the ability of the human race to learn and
think.
Right now we are seeing a golden age of technology, using it all the time during our every day lives. When
we get up there's instant coffee and the microwave and all these great things that help us get ready for our
day. But we aren't allowing our minds to deteriorate by using them, we are only making things easier for
ourselves and saving time for other important things in our days. Going off to school or work in our cars
instead of a horse and buggy. Think of the brain power and genius that was used to come up with that
single invention that has changed the way we move across this globe.
Using technology to solve our continually more complicated problems as a human race is definately a good
thing. Our ability to think for ourselves isn't deteriorating, it's continuing to grow, moving on to higher
though functions and more ingenious ideas. The ability to use what technology we have is an example
Reader Commentary for Essay Response – Score 4
This essay meets all the criteria of a 4-level essay. The writer develops a clear position (“Using technology
to solve our problems will continue to help us realize our potential as a human race”). The position is then
developed with relevant reasons (“using technology to solve more complicat[ed] problems gives humans a
chance to expand their thinking and learning...” and “we are seeing a golden age of technology”). Point 1,
“Using technology” is supported with the simple, but relevant notions that technology allows us access to
information and abilities to which we would not normally have access. Similarly, point 2, “the golden age”
is supported by the basic description of our technologically saturated social condition. Though the overall
development and organization of the essay does suffer from an occasional misdirection (see paragraph 3’s
abrupt progression from coffee pots to the benefits of technology to cars), the essay as a whole flows
smoothly and logically from one idea to the next.
It is useful to compare this essay to the 3 level essay presented next. Though they both utilize some very
surface-level discussion and often fail to probe deeply into the issue, this writer does, however, take the
analysis a step further. In paragraph 2, the distinction between this essay and the next one (the 3 level
response) can most clearly be seen. To support the notion that advances in technology actually help
increase thinking ability, the writer draws a clever parallel between the promise of modern, sophisticated
technology (computer) and the equally substantial/pervasive technology of the past (printing press).
Like the analysis, the language in this essay clearly meets the requirements for a score of 4. The writer
displays sufficient control of language and the conventions of standard written English. The preponderance
of mistakes are of a cosmetic nature (“trying to solve more complicating problems”). There is a sentence
fragment (“Going off...”) along with a comma splice (“Our ability...isn’t deteriorating, it’s continuing to
grow...”) in paragraph 3. These errors, though, are minor and do not interfere with the clarity of the ideas
being presented.
Essay Response – Score 3
There is no current proof that advancing technology will deteriorate the ability of humans to think. On the
contrary, advancements in technology had advanced our vast knowledge in many fields, opening
opportunities for further understanding and achievement. For example, the problem of dibilitating illnesses
and diseases such as alzheimer's disease is slowing being solved by the technological advancements in stem
cell research. The future ability of growing new brain cells and the possibility to reverse the onset of
alzheimer's is now becoming a reality. This shows our initiative as humans to better our health
demonstrates greater ability of humans to think.
One aspect where the ability of humans may initially be seen as an example of deteriorating minds is the
use of internet and cell phones. In the past humans had to seek out information in many different
enviroments and aspects of life. Now humans can sit in a chair and type anything into a computer and get
an answer. Our reliance on this type of technology can be detrimental if not regulated and regularily
substituted for other information sources such as human interactions and hands on learning. I think if
humans understand that we should not have such a reliance on computer technology, that we as a species
will advance further by utilizing the opportunity of computer technology as well as the other sources of
information outside of a computer. Supplementing our knowledge with internet access is surely a way for
technology to solve problems while continually advancing the human race.
Reader Commentary for Essay Response – Score 3
This essay never moves beyond a superficial discussion of the issue. The writer attempts to develop two
points: that advancements in technology have progressed our knowledge in many fields and that
supplementing rather than relying on technology is “surely a way for technology to solve problems while
continually advancing the human race.” Each point, then, is developed with relevant but inefficient
evidence. In discussing the ability of technology to advance knowledge in many fields (a broad subject rife
with possible examples), the writer uses only one limited and very brief example from a specific field
(medicine and stem-cell research).
Development of the second point is hindered by a lack of specificity and organization. The writer creates
what might most be comparable to an outline. The writer cites a need for regulation/supplementation and
warns of the detriment of over-reliance upon technology. However, the explanation of both the problem
and solution is both vague and limited (“Our reliance...can be detrimental...If humans understand that we
should not have such a reliance...we will advance further”). There is neither explanation of consequences
nor clarifications of what is meant by “supplementing.” This second paragraph is a series of
generalizations, which are loosely connected and lack a much needed grounding.
In the essay, there are some minor language errors and a few more serious flaws (e.g., “The future ability of
growing new brain cells” or “One aspect where the ability of humans may initially be seen as an example
of deteriorating minds…”). Despite the accumulation of such flaws, though, meaning is generally clear.
Thus, this essay earns a score of 3.
Essay Response – Score 2
In recent centuries, humans have developed the technology very rapidly, and you may accept some merit of
it, and you may see a distortion in society occured by it. To be lazy for human in some meaning is one of
the fashion issues in thesedays. There are many symptoms and resons of it. However, I can not agree with
the statement that the technology make humans to be reluctant to thinkng thoroughly.
Of course, you can see the phenomena of human laziness along with developed technology in some
place. However, they would happen in specific condition, not general. What makes human to be laze of
thinking is not merely technology, but the the tendency of human that they treat them as a magic stick and a
black box. Not understanding the aims and theory of them couses the disapproval problems.
The most important thing to use the thechnology, regardless the new or old, is to comprehend the
fundamental idea of them, and to adapt suit tech to tasks in need. Even if you recognize a method as a allmighty
and it is extremely over-spec to your needs, you can not see the result you want. In this procedure,
humans have to consider as long as possible to acquire adequate functions. Therefore, humans can not
escape from using their brain.
In addition, the technology as it is do not vain automatically, the is created by humans. Thus, the more
developed tech and the more you want a convenient life, the more you think and emmit your creativity to
breakthrough some banal method sarcastically.
Consequently, if you are not passive to the new tech, but offensive to it, you would not lose your ability
to think deeply. Furthermore, you may improve the ability by adopting it.
Reader Commentary for Essay Response – Score 2
The language of this essay is what most clearly links it to the score point of 2. Amidst sporadic moments
of clarity, this essay is marred by serious errors in grammar, usage and mechanics that often interfere with
meaning. It is unclear what the writer means when he/she states, “To be lazy for human in some meaning
is one of the fashion issues in thesedays,” or “...to adapt suit tech to tasks in need.” Despite such severe
flaws, the writer has made an obvious attempt to respond to the prompt (“I can not agree with the statement
that the technology make humans to be reluctant to thinking thoroughly”) as well as an unclear attempt to
support such an assertion (“Not understanding the aims and theory of them [technology] couses the
disapproval problems” and “The most important thing to use the thechnology...is to comprehend the
fundamental idea of them”). Holistically, the essay displays a seriously flawed but not fundamentally
deficient attempt to develop and support its claims.
(Note: In this SPECIFIC case, the analysis is tied directly to the language. As the language falters, so too
does the analysis.)
Essay Response – Score 1
Humans have invented machines but they have forgot it and have started everything technically so clearly
their thinking process is deterioating.
Reader Commentary for Essay Response – Score 1
The essay is clearly on topic, as evidenced by the writer’s usage of the more significant terms from the
prompt: “technically” (technologically), “humans”, “thinking” (think) and “deteriorating” (deteriorate).
Such usage is the only clear evidence of understanding. Meaning aside, the brevity of the essay (1
sentence) clearly indicates the writer’s inability to develop a response that addresses the specific
instructions given (“Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement above and explain
your reasoning for the position you take”).
The language, too, is clearly 1-level, as the sentence fails to achieve coherence. The coherent phrases in
this one-sentence response are those tied to the prompt: “Humans have invented machines” and “their
thinking process is deteriorating.” Otherwise, the point made is unclear.