求版上大神批改 ISSUE 作文，謝謝！

baconjoeUID：3485982

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

Does the ability of humans to think for themselves deteriorate as people rely more on technology to solve problems?  The speaker daims so, for the reason that the advanced technology take places of human works, causing the value of human thinking decreases.  I concede that undue reliance on technology can impede our thought.  Otherwise, in my view we learn and ponder far more from the helps of technology like computers or instruments than from doing things by our own without the assistance from today’s technology.

Admittedly, under some circumstances convenient technology which we use can be counterproductive to thinking.  For supporting examples one need to look no further than mechanical calculators.  On today’s educational phenomenon and strategy, not only school’s students but also adults who have already stepped outside schools all prefer to use calculators when they encounter mathematic calculations.  Although these may appear to be easy for them to figure out the answers in heads like a simple addition in math issue, they still depend on those technological devices to solve these problems.  Understandably, this conduct has a great influence on human ability to think by themselves.  In fact, this character of laziness is natural instincts in human beings.  As the proverb goes, ”Practice makes perfect.”  The end result is that anthropic thought is limited.

Technology can also inhibit thinking when students are gaining new knowledge.  For example, a student whose major is chemical engineering is puzzled by outcomes from the modeling software in the computer when doing experiments in the laboratory.  This student then presents these results and declares them to be the symptom of this situation without further tests and thinking.  Due to the helps from high-tech problem’s solvers, the student tend to ignore possibilities of other reasons and give up thinking as soon as they receive data from software.

Aside from the foregoing two provisos, however, I fundamentally disagree with the speaker’s claim.  Assuming technological devices and installations in this modern world are all treated as supplementary instruments, people then have more vacancies in brains for working on core problems.  Indeed it is primarily through aids from technology that human thinking elaborates, whether at personal, community and global level.

At the personal level, comparing to forebears in ancient time when they had little technology to support them with their scientific investigation, we now can explore and discover variegated phenomenon which provokes our further thought on new issues.  In the circumstance of the former, even a genius like Einstein in that time had an upper bound without sufficient and adequate technology supports.  On the other hand, in today’s world we share copious and frontier technology which enables us to step in extended scientific areas.  In this case, we think more accurately and diversely on this high startup point.  At the community level, through the aids of technology sociologists can come to a more vivid and lucid pictures when analyzing problems in social science.  Conversely, a great deal of times will be consumed without the existence of technology every time when sociologists try to gather statistics, which turns out to be somewhat deleterious to human thinking ability.  Finally, at the global level, meteorologists capable of figuring out resolutions to deal with holes in the ozone layer and devastating storms by doing computer modelling to simulate the situation.  Technology plays an important role in helping meteorologists to settle things in a short time and with great efficiency.

In sum, unless people use technology unwisely such as due to laziness and to misleading, I concede that technology can impede thinking.  Otherwise, technology is supposed to be the tool which empowers us to think more and consider things on full-scale.  Accordingly, on balance speaker is wrong in general aspect.

tbic2012UID：3413195

take places of human works >takes place of ?
关于结构 我有个问题 Admittedly 感觉是接与自己观点相反的（让步），又however说自己绝对不同意 会不会有点自相矛盾呢，如果不细看会误解。。。
感觉还是觉得结构怪怪的 也可能是我没有细看。。。