Issue 官方范文

Issue官方范文:

Sample EssayResponses and Reader Commentary for the Issue Task

As people rely more and more on technology to solve problems, the ability of humans to think for themselves will surely deteriorate.

Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position.

Note: All responses are reproduced exactly as written, including errors, misspellings, etc., if any.

Essay Response — Score6

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 occurrences could 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 think for themselves. The assumption is that an increased reliance on technology negates the need for people to think creatively to solve previousquandaries. 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 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 of emerging markets, global warming becomes a concern inconceivable to the horse-and-buggygeneration. 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, hyperinflationenvironments from South America to Eastern Europe.

This last example provides the most hope in how technology actually provides hope for 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 prehistoricaldays, 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 make 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 hopefulposture of the possibilities that technology provides for new avenues of human imagination.

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, but 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),\" with only minor errors appearing. Thus, this essay meets all the requirements for receiving a top score, a 6.

Essay Response — Score5

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 CNNgleaming in their eyeballs, it's tempting to believe that technology has isolated and infantilized 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-stripedPDA, 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 photodocument 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 consumerism 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 unarguably more efficient in our badness these days. We're effective worker bees of ineffectiveness!

If T\echnology 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 userswith some direly-needed direction.

Reader Commentary for EssayResponse — Score 5

The language of thisessay clearly illustrates both its strengths and weaknesses. The flowery andsometimes uncannily keen descriptions are often used to powerful effect, but atother times this descriptive language results in errors in syntax. See, forexample, the problems of parallelism in the second-to-last sentence ofparagraph 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 gleams in their eyeballs, it's tempting to believe...\"). However, such lucid prose is often countered by an over-reliance on abstractions and tangential reasoning. For example, what does the fact that video games \"literally train [teens] to kill\" have to do with the use or deterioration of thinking abilities?

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 do one or the other, depending on the user) and because the author makes use of\"appropriate vocabulary and sentence variety,\" a score of 5 is appropriate.

Essay Response — Score4

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 tothink, learn, philosophize, etc. may even reach limits never dreamed of beforeby average people. Using technology to solve problems will continue to help usrealize our potential as a human race.

If you think about it, using technology to solve more complicated 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 without the invention of the internet. Think what an impact the printing press, a technologically superior making 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 everyday 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 don't allow 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 the 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 definitely a good thing. Our ability to think for ourselves isn't deteriorating, it'scontinuing to grow, moving on to higher though functions and more ingeniousideas. The ability to use what technology we have is an example

Reader Commentary forEssay Response — Score 4

This essay meets all the criteria of a level-4 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 complicated [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 by the simple but relevant notion 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 level-3 essay presented next. Though both essays entail some surface-level discussion and often fail to probe deeply into the issue, this writer does take the analysis a step further. In paragraph 2, the distinction between this essay and the next one (the level-3 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 actual \"impact\"of equally \"promising\" and pervasive technologies 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 is of a cosmetic nature (\"trying to solve more complicated 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. However, these errors are minor and do not interfere with the clarity of the ideas being presented.

Essay Response — Score3

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 debilitating 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 a 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 environments 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

andregularily 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 insufficient evidence. In discussing the potential 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 of 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 be best described as 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 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 clarification of what is meant by \"supplementing.\" This second paragraph is a series of generalizations that 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, the writer's meaning is generally clear. Thus, this essay earns a score of 3.

Essay Response — Score2

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 occurred by it. To be lazyfor human in some meaning is one of the fashion issues in thesedays. There aremany symptoms and resons of it. However, I can not agree with the statementthat the technology make humans to be reluctant to thinkng thoroughly.

Of course, you can seethe phenomena of human laziness along with developed technology in some place.However, they would happen in specific condition, not general. What makes humanto be laze of thinking is not merely technology, but the the tendency of humanthat they treat them as a magic stick and a black box. Not understanding theaims and theory of them couses the

disapproval problems.

The most importantthing to use the thechnology, regardless the new or old, is to comprehend thefundamental idea of them, and to adapt suit tech to tasks in need. Even if yourecognize a method as a all-mighty and it is extremely over-spec to your needs,you can not see the result you want. In this procedure, humans have to consideras long as possible to acquire adequate functions. Therefore, humans can notescape from using their brain.

In addition, thetechnology 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 youthink and emmit your creativity to breakthrough some banalmethod sarcastically.

Consequently, if youare not passive to the new tech, but offensive to it, you would not lose yourability to think deeply. Furthermore, you may improve the ability byadopting it.

Reader Commentary forEssay Response — Score 2

The language of thisessay is what most clearly links it to the score of 2. Amidst sporadic momentsof clarity, this essay is marred by serious errors in grammar, usage andmechanics that often interfere with meaning. It is unclear what the writermeans when he/she states, \"To be lazy for human in some meaning is one ofthe fashion issues in thesedays,\" or \"to adapt suit tech to tasksin need.\"

Despite such severeflaws, the writer has made an obvious attempt to respond to the prompt (\"Ican not agree with the statement that the technology make humans to bereluctant to thinking thoroughly\") as well as an unclear attempt tosupport such an assertion (\"Not understanding the aims and theory of them[technology] couses the disapproval problems\" and \"The most

importantthing to use the thechnology ... is to comprehend the fundamental idea ofthem\"). On the whole, the essay displays a seriously flawed but notfundamentally 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 toodoes the analysis.)

Essay Response — Score1

Humans have inventedmachines but they have forgot it and have started everything technically soclearly their thinking process is deterioating.

Reader Commentary forEssay Response — Score 1

The essay is clearly ontopic, as evidenced by the writer's usage of the more significant terms fromthe prompt: \"technically\" (technologically),

\"humans,\"\"thinking\" (think) and \"deteriorating\" (deteriorate). Suchusage is the only clear evidence of understanding. Meaning aside, the brevityof the essay (one sentence) clearly indicates the writer's inability to developa response that follows the specific instructions given (\"Discuss theextent to which you agree or disagree

with the statement above and explain yourreasoning for the position you take\").

The language, too, isclearly level 1, as the sentence fails to achieve coherence. The coherentphrases in this one-sentence response are those tied to the prompt:\"Humans have invented machines\" and \"their thinking process isdeteriorating.\" Otherwise, the point being made is unclear.