Issue官方范文:

Sample EssayResponses and Reader Commentary for the Issue Task

As people relymore and more on technology to solve problems, the ability of humans to thinkfor themselves will surely deteriorate.

Discuss theextent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain yourreasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting yourposition, you should consider ways in which the statement might or might nothold true and explain how these considerations shape your position.

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

Essay Response — Score6

The statement linkingtechnology negatively with free thinking plays on recent human experience overthe past century. Surely there has been no time in history where the livedlives of people have changed more dramatically. A quick reflection on a typicalday reveals how technology has revolutionized the world. Most people commute towork in an automobile that runs on an internal combustion engine. During theworkday, chances are high that the employee will interact with a computer thatprocesses information on silicon bridges that are .09 microns wide. Uponleaving home, family members will be reached through wireless networks thatutilize satellites orbiting the earth. Each of these common occurrences couldhave been inconceivable at the turn of the 19th century.

The statement attemptsto bridge these dramatic changes to a reduction in the ability for humans tothink for themselves. The assumption is that an increased reliance ontechnology negates the need for people to think creatively to solve previousquandaries. Looking back at the introduction, one could argue that without acar, computer, or mobile phone, the hypothetical worker would need to findalternate methods of transport, information processing and communication.Technology short circuits this thinking by making the problems obsolete.

However, this relianceon technology does not necessarily preclude the creativity that marks the humanspecies. The prior examples reveal that technology allows for convenience. Thecar, computer and phone all release additional time for people to live moreefficiently. This efficiency does not preclude the need for humans to think forthemselves. In fact, technology frees humanity to not only tackle new problems,but may itself create new issues that did not exist without technology. Forexample, the proliferation of automobiles has introduced a need for fuelconservation on a global scale. With increasing energy demands from emergingmarkets, global warming becomes a concern inconceivable to the horse-and-buggygeneration. Likewise dependence on oil has created nation-states that are notdependent on taxation, allowing ruling parties to oppress minority groups suchas women. Solutions to these complex problems require the unfetteredimaginations of maverick scientists and politicians.

In contrast to thestatement, we can even see how technology frees the human imagination. Consider how the digital revolution and the advent of the internet hasallowed for an unprecedented exchange of ideas. WebMD, a popular internetportal for medical information, permits patients to self research symptoms fora more informed doctor visit. This exercise opens pathways of thinking thatwere previously closed off to the medical layman. With increasedinterdisciplinary interactions, inspiration can arrive from the most surprisingcorners. Jeffrey Sachs, one of the architects of the UN Millenium DevelopmentGoals, based his ideas on emergency care triage techniques. The unlikelymarriage of economics and medicine has healed tense, hyperinflationenvironments from South America to Eastern Europe.

This last exampleprovides the most hope in how technology actually provides hope to the futureof humanity. By increasing our reliance on technology, impossible goals can nowbe achieved.  Consider how the late 20th century witnessed the completeelimination of smallpox. This disease had ravaged the human race since prehistoricaldays, and yet with the technology of vaccines, free thinking humans dared toimagine a world free of smallpox.  Using technology, battle plans weredrawn out, and smallpox was systematically targeted and eradicated.

Technology will alwaysmark the human experience, from the discovery of fire to the implementation ofnanotechnology. Given the history of the human race, there will be no limit tothe number of problems, both new and old, for us to tackle. There is no need toretreat to a Luddite attitude to new things, but rather embrace a hopefulposture to the possibilities that technology provides for new avenues ofhuman imagination.

Reader Commentary forEssay Response — Score 6

The author of thisessay stakes out a clear and insightful position on the issue and follows thespecific instructions by presenting reasons to support that position. The essaycogently argues that technology does not decrease our ability to think forourselves, 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 morecreative thinking, not less.

In further examples,the essay shows how technology allows for the linking of ideas that may neverhave been connected in the past (like medicine and economic models), pushingpeople to think in new ways. Examples are persuasive and fully developed;reasoning is logically sound and well supported.

Ideas in the essay areconnected logically, with effective transitions used both between paragraphs("However" or "In contrast to the statement") and withinparagraphs. Sentence structure is varied and complex and the essay clearlydemonstrates 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 haveexpressed the following sentiment, or some variation on it, during our dailycommutes to work: "People are getting so stupid these days!"Surrounded as we are by striding and strident automatons with cell phones gluedto their ears, PDA's gripped in their palms, and omniscient, omnipresent CNNgleaming in their eyeballs, it's tempting to believe that technology hasisolated and infantilized us, essentally transforming us into dependent,conformist morons best equipped to sideswip one another in our SUV's.

Furthermore, hangingaround with the younger, pre-commute generation, whom tech-savviness seems tohave 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 worsttendencies to follow the crowd. Indeed, they have seemingly evolved intointergalactic conformity police. After all, today's tech-aided teens are, courtesyof authentic, hands-on video games, literally trained to kill; courtesy of chatand instant text messaging, they have their own language; they even have tinycameras to efficiently photodocument your fashion blunders! Is thisadolescence, or paparazzi terrorist training camp?

With all this evidence,it's easy to believe that tech trends and the incorporation of technologicalwizardry into our everyday lives have served mostly to enforce conformity,promote dependence, heighten comsumerism and materialism, and generally createa culture that values self-absorption and personal entitlement over cooperationand collaboration. However, I argue that we are merely in the inchoate stagesof learning to live with technology while still loving one another. After all,even given the examples provided earlier in this essay, it seems clear thattechnology hasn't impaired our thinking and problem-solving capacities.Certainly it has incapacitated our behavior and manners; certainly our valueshave taken a severe blow. However, we are inarguably more efficient in ourbadness these days. We're effective worker bees of ineffectiveness!

If T\technology has soincreased our senses of self-efficacy that we can become veritable agents ofthe awful, virtual CEO's of selfishness, certainly it can be beneficial.Harnessed correctly, technology can improve our ability to think and act forourselves. 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 consistentevidence of facility with syntax and complex vocabulary ("Surrounded as weare by striding and strident automatons with cell phones glued to their ears,PDA's gripped in their palms, and omniscient, omnipresent CNN gleaming in theireyeballs, it's tempting to believe..."). However, such lucid prose isoften 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 thinkingabilities?

Because this essaytakes a complex approach to the issue (arguing, in effect, that technologyneither enhances nor reduces our ability to think for ourselves, but can do oneor 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, Ithink it is more probable that our bodies will surely deteriorate long beforeour minds do in any significant amount. Who can't say that technology has madeus lazier, but that's the key word, lazy, not stupid. The ever increasingamount of technology that we incorporate into our daily lives makes peoplethink 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 complicating problems gives humans a chance toexpand their thinking and learning, opening up whole new worlds for manypeople. Many of these people are glad for the chance to expand their horizonsby learning more, going to new places, and trying new things. If it wasn't forthe invention of new technological devices, I wouldn't be sitting at thiscomputer trying to philosophize about technology. It would be extremely hardfor children in much poorer countries to learn and think for themselves without the invention of the internet. Think what an impact the printing press, atechnologically superior mackine at the time, had on the ability of the humanrace to learn and think.

Right now we are seeinga 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 greatthings that help us get ready for our day. But we aren't allowing our minds todeteriorate by using them, we are only making things easier for ourselves andsaving time for other important things in our days. Going off to school or workin our cars instead of a horse and buggy. Think of the brain power and geniusthat was used to come up with that single invention that has changed the way wemove across this globe.

Using technology tosolve our continually more complicated problems as a human race is definately agood 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 allthe criteria of a level-4 essay. The writer develops a clear position("Using technology to solve our problems will continue to help us realizeour potential as a human race"). The position is then developed with relevantreasons ("using technology to solve more complicat[ed] problems giveshumans a chance to expand their thinking and learning" and "we areseeing a golden age of technology").

Point 1, "usingtechnology," is supported with the simple but relevant notion thattechnology allows us access to information and abilities to which we would notnormally have access. Similarly, point 2, the "golden age," issupported by the basic description of our technologically saturated socialcondition. Though the overall development and organization of the essay doessuffer from an occasional misdirection (see paragraph 3's abrupt progressionfrom coffee pots to the benefits of technology to cars), the essay as a wholeflows smoothly and logically from one idea to the next.

It is useful to comparethis essay to the level-3 essay presented next. Though both essays entail somesurface-level discussion and often fail to probe deeply into the issue, thiswriter does take the analysis a step further. In paragraph 2, the distinctionbetween this essay and the next one (the level-3 response) can most clearly beseen. To support the notion that advances in technology actually help increasethinking ability, the writer draws a clever parallel between the promise ofmodern, sophisticated technology (computer) and the actual "impact"of equally "promising" and pervasive technologies of the past(printing press).

Like the analysis, thelanguage in this essay clearly meets the requirements for a score of 4. Thewriter displays sufficient control of language and the conventions of standardwritten English. The preponderance of mistakes are of a cosmetic nature("trying to solve more complicating problems.") There is a sentencefragment ("Going off ...") along with a comma  splice ("Ourability ... isn't deteriorating, it's continuing to grow ...") inparagraph 3. However, these errors are minor and do not interfere with theclarity of the ideas being presented.

Essay Response — Score3

There is no currentproof that advancing technology will deteriorate the ability of humans tothink. On the contrary, advancements in technology had advanced our vastknowledge in many fields, opening opportunities for further understanding andachievement. For example, the problem of dibilitating illnesses and diseasessuch as alzheimer's disease is slowing being solved by the technologicaladvancements in stem cell research. The future ability of growing new braincells and the possibility to reverse the onset of alzheimer's is now becoming areality. This shows our initiative as humans to better our health demonstratesgreater ability of humans to think.

One aspect where theability of humans may initially be seen as an example of deteriorating minds isthe use of internet and cell phones. In the past humans had to seek outinformation in many different enviroments and aspects of life. Now humans cansit in a chair and type anything into a computer and get an answer. Ourreliance on this type of technology can be detrimental if not regulated andregularily substituted for other information sources such as human interactionsand hands on learning. I think if humans understand that we should not havesuch a reliance on computer technology, that we as a species will advancefurther by utilizing the opportunity of computer technology as well as theother sources of information outside of a computer. Supplementing our knowledgewith internet access is surely a way for technology to solve problems whilecontinually advancing the human race.

Reader Commentary forEssay Response — Score 3

This essay never movesbeyond a superficial discussion of the issue. The writer attempts to developtwo points: that advancements in technology have progressed our knowledge inmany fields and that supplementing rather than relying on technology is "surelya way for technology to solve problems while continually advancing the humanrace." Each point, then, is developed with relevant but insufficientevidence. In discussing the potential of technology to advance knowledge inmany fields (a broad subject, rife with possible examples), the writer usesonly one limited and very brief example from a specific field (medicine andstem-cell research).

Development of thesecond point is hindered by a lack of specificity and organization. The writercreates what might be best described as an outline. The writer cites a need forregulation/supplementation and warns of the detriment of over-reliance upontechnology.  However, the explanation of both the problem and solution isvague and limited ("Our reliance ... can be detrimental. If humansunderstand that we should not have such a reliance ... we will advancefurther"). There is neither explanation of consequences nor clarificationof what is meant by "supplementing." This second paragraph is aseries of generalizations that are loosely connected and lack amuch-needed grounding.

In the essay, there aresome minor language errors and a few more serious flaws (e.g., "The futureability of growing new brain cells" or "One aspect where the abilityof humans may initially be seen as an example of deteriorating minds").Despite the accumulation of such flaws, the writer's meaning is generallyclear. 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 somemerit of it, and you may see a distortion in society occured 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.