This is my first attempt on the issue essay. My particular concerns are whether my logic and examples are logical, well-developed, and persuasive enough. Any other critiques will be much appreciate though. Thanks in advance and I'll be happy to return the favour!
Issue Prompt: “As people rely more and more on technology to solve problems, the ability of humans to think for themselves will surely deteriorate.”
In order to make the author’s claim, we also need to explore how we use technology to solve problems in the first place. The direct relationship between overreliance on technology and people’s ability to think for themselves that the author draws undermines how we use the technology.
Considering the perspective that the efficiency of technologies will increase our use and reliance ironically ignores its benefits. The use of technology to solve problems is not only helpful for simple problems but argueably, enhances our ability to solve more complex problems. For example, the use of calculators are discouraged in elementary schools but often encouraged for university students. Why might that be the case? While both are developing, students attempting to solve problems in their level of education, the complexity of problems in post-secondary curriculum is obvious. The use of calculators in university tests eliminates simple calculations in order to tackle more complex problems. In line with this reasoning, then, reliance on technology increases our mental capacity to think about more complex problems.
We can also combine and manipulate technology in order to approach and solve problems. If we consider technology as one of our many tools, rather than an ‘one-fits-all’ solution, than our ability to think will not deteriorate. For instance, medical diagnoses are deducted using different instruments to analyze different areas of our body. In addition, the combined use of technology can help us consolidate our previous findings. For example, microbiological testing for an infectious disease uses multiple skilled technology and diagnostic strategies to come to a sound analysis. In this way, scientists could come to an accurate and precise answer that would eliminate false positives or false negatives.
Shifting to a more pragmatic perspective, we need to explore our relationship with technology itself. The author neglects the product-consumer relationship that increases the number and diversity of technologies that we use. The use of technology is not simply a linear process. Rather, information about how consumers use their technology will inform product engineers and developers to adapt to our increasing needs. As a result, engineers will continue to develop new ways of using our technology as we currently use them. Due to this cyclical relationship, our use of technology will continue to evolve along with us. Our relationship with technology is not a simple, linear process.
Humans’ ability to think for themselves will not simply deteriorate with the use of technology due to the nature of our use. Our use and reliance on technology will inform engineers to develop innovative products to adapt to our problems.
Please evaluate my argumentative essay for the analytical writing section of the GRE. I'm particularly concern about the development and quality of my counterarguments. I will gladly return the favour! The current argument cites a survey of Mason City Residents' favourite recreational activities to support increasing the budget to clean the river and the annual riverside recreational facilities. The following argument, however, is flawed because it extrapolates the result of a survey to support a causal effect. Firstly, the water sports, swimming, boating, and fishing, all require different river conditions that the author fails to recognize. While the cleanness and hygiene of the river may improve following river maintenance, the condition of the river may still not be suitable for these activates. The author does not examine whether there are proper boating docks; attractive scenery; calm swimming conditions; or vibrant sea life conditions. In essence, the term "quality" undermines these necessary conditions to attract city residents to the river. Considering that the "quality" of the river is suitable for the conditions for the resident's favourite riverside recreations, they may still choose to enjoy these activities else where or in a minimal number of times. This analysis touches on the broad generalization of the survey. More specifically, the survey asks the residents to rank their "favourite" recreational activity. not how often they partake in their favourite recreational activity or where they prefer to partake in these activities. For many residents, boating and fishing may be a family affair where everyone has to interrupt their normal routine to set aside a time for a extended trip or longer excursion. Despite improving the quality and cleanliness of the river, the resident may still choose alternative rivers or lakes to partake in their favourite water activity. The argument also leaves many other unanswered questions about the relevance of the survey. The author attempts to relate the result of the surveys to public opinion that may have been circulating for years. While a survey, as irrelevant ask it may be, is representative of the residents, residential complaints may be the opinion of a few minorities or highly critical few. Therefore, the line of reasoning that cleaning the river will increase recreational activity is not consistent and therefore, unwarranted. The author's argument that increasing the budget for riverside recreational activities is a necessity since the improved quality of the river will attract the city residents is unwarranted.