最後一個空位...填滿...

wuqian0801UID: 2637709

Has Technology made children less creative than they were in the past?

It is widely acknowledged that technology has become an indispensable part of our life and, it also has come to pervade every aspect of our lives. While due to the dramatic development of science and technology, it makes things a lot easier and faster. What is more, it exerts an unfavorable impact on children, children who are the most creative group and questioned about everything around them. Compared to the past, even though children cannot enjoy the convenience of technology, they can keep the curiosity and creativity of all the things.
Viewing the impacts of technology in the light reveals that it definitely destroys current children's creativity.

My main reason to support this viewpoint is that technology, like Internet, can help children solve the facing problem immediately, which leads them fail to think about it. For example, my younger brother has a task that assigned by their teacher to let them do a creative artifact. In order to free up time, he choose to search the Internet and find a content idea and model to accomplish his assignment. In fact, the purpose of his teacher to assign this homework is to incentive their thought or idea and improve their ability of practice. However, children in the past need to finish this kind of task by themselves in that the immaturity of technology.

What is more, another reason for me to hold this opinion is that technology makes children lazy and always stays at home. Leisure time has been enhanced by technology and, children are fond of stay at home for a whole day long. For example, Television, with its rapid development, television programs are diverse and they attract children to kill long time to watch them. Those time maybe spend on reading, practicing or communicating. Additionally, children may receive information or knowledge largely from this type of media, and are accustomed to receive information but not create some interesting things. Nevertheless, it is impossible for children to watch TV for a long time for the reason that television is still not a prevalent thing for every family.

To sum up, though the advantages that technology bring about are considerable, we still cannot ignore the demerit that it indeed decrease children's creativity and practical ability when the harmful influence of making them think less than before and wasting plenty of time to watch are taken into account.

mpromanusUID: 2565872

It is widely acknowledged that technology has become an indispensable part of our life and, (In writings, this comma usually comes before the 'and'. Of course, putting the comma behind the 'and' is not wrong. It's just more of a spoken language thing to put the comma after the 'and'.) it also has come to pervade every aspect of our lives (I'm personally okay with both 'our life' and 'our lives', but you need to be consistent within one sentence.). While due to the dramatic development of science and technology, it makes things are a lot easier and faster (You might think that this 'it' means 'the dramatic development', but because of the 'due to' you used, 'dramatic development' becomes a secondary phrase and cannot stand as the subject for the next clause. Similar correction for the next sentence.). What is more, it the development of technology (Part of the reason for this correction is explained in my previous comment. Another part is that this is already a bit far away from the actual subject that's pointed to by 'it'. Human beings on average can only remember 6-7 words at one time, so do take the distance between the noun and its pronoun into consideration - if the pronoun is far away from the noun it's referring to, espeically if there's another clause between them, consider repeating the noun instead.) exerts an unfavorable impact on children, children who are the most creative group (of all people?) and questioned about everything around them. Compared to the past, (There seems to be a shift in subject here. The subject of this 'comapred to' is NOT 'the past', but 'the present'. 'The past' is the object. Therefore if you start talking about the past next, you're shifting the subject. If you want to talk about the past, use something like 'Whereas in the past, children...') even though children cannot enjoy the conveniences of technology, they can keep the level of curiosity and creativity high of all the things. (You're already making conclusions that the question expects you to make, here in the opening paragraph..remember that 'they can keep..high' is something you need to prove in this essay, not a foundation on which your essay is based.)Viewing the impacts of technology in the light reveals that it definitely destroys current children's creativity.

My main reason to support this viewpoint is that technology, like the Internet, can help children solve the facing problem? (Do you mean 'the problems they face'?) immediately, which leads them to fail to in thinking about it. (Again, as I've commented before, you seem to like clauses but you don't seem to be really solid at using them. This part could be rewritten simply as 'but this means they'll never think about these problems'. Clauses are used to explain complex, winded concepts, so if your logic is actually straight-forward and simple, there's really no need to complicate it with clauses.) For example, my younger brother has a task that assigned by their teacher, which is to let them do a creative artifact (Now you see that this is a more suitable place to use a clause, because there're many attributes of the 'task' you're trying to describe. If you pile the descriptions together, the sentence is likely unclear, therefore it's better to use a clause to properly 'attach' the descriptions. Remember, clauses are by nature descriptive, so they're better used to describe details rather than showing off logic.). In order to free up (Do you mean 'save'?) time, he chooses to search the Internet and find a content idea and model to accomplish his assignment. In fact, the purpose of his teacher to assign this homework is to incentive? their thoughts or ideas and improve their practical abilities of practice. However, children in the past need to finish this kind of task by themselves in that the immaturity of technology (This is a fragment. If you use 'in that', it needs to be followed by a complete clause. Also, your idea is not explained fully here as your sentence just trails off. It's probably something like '..by themselves in that they had no technology to copy from existing ideas, therefore they had to invent their own ideas and be really creative.' Go back to the question's keyword. Dig out where creativity fits into this example's picture - that technology makes it easy to copy from existing ideas, which is the opposite of creativity. I do have the feeling that you have the idea of how your example should be explained, and in fact you can raise very relevant, very good examples, but it seems to me that you're struggling to get the proper expressions to fully realize these ideas in the essay.).

What is more, another reason for me to hold this opinion (What opinion? As said, this is too far away from the actual 'opinion' you're talking about. Readers won't be able to remember what your opinion is by now, so you need to spell it out to be clear.) is that technology makes children lazy and always stays at home. Leisure time has been enhanced by technology and, children are fond of staying at home for a whole days long. For example, Television. With its rapid development, television programs are diverse and they attract children to kill long time to watch them to kill a lot of time. That time may be spent on reading, practicing (practising what?) or communicating (with whom?). Additionally, children may receive information or knowledge largely from this type of media, and are accustomed to receive information but not create some interesting things. (This whole part is too vague to be persuasive. I understand what you're trying to get across, but the danger of being vague is that since these words don't have clear boundaries and don't focus on the keywords in your question, your ideas can be extremely easy to refute. For example, does babbling with friends on MSN Messenger count as 'communication'? Does it count as 'technology' too? Is it then more 'creative' than watching TV? This kind of questions should let you see why you need to constantly focus on the scope of the question.) Nevertheless, it is impossible for children to watch TV for a long time for the reason that television is still not a prevalent thing for every family. (I totally don't get this. If TV is not prevalent for every family, it means TV is prevalent in some families, and some children are bound to watch TV for a long time, then it's possible for some children to watch TV for a long time - but if you say 'it's impossible for children to watch TV for a long time', you're actually saying that 'all children cannot watch TV for a long time'. This is an interesting confusion here with the scope words [all, every, etc.] used together with negation words [impossible]. It's not possible to explain all the varieties here so if you're interested to understand more about this, feel free to 站内短信.)

To sum up, though the advantages that technology brings about are considerable, we still cannot ignore the demerits, that it indeed decreases children's creativity and practical ability when the harmful influence of making them think less than before and wasting plenty of time to watch ('watch' what?) are taken into account. (This is too long and too tangled a sentence. It's better to separate this into the statement '..it decreases children's creativity and practical ability' and the reasons 'make them think less, waste time to watch ???'. Take note that 'make them think less' and 'waste time to wach' have different subjects - the former 'technology', the latter 'children'. That's the primary reason for this correction. It's going to be very confusing if you throw phrases with different subjects together without due consideration.)

总结：

如何说呢。。我觉得在逻辑说理的方面你其实是有很大的潜力，但是你的句法实在是混乱到基本无法充分表达你这方面的能力。。

现在渐渐地看出来说你在句法方面最最主要的问题，是主语混乱。英语句子的基本结构是所谓的主谓宾，就是一个句子有一个主语，一个谓语，一个宾语（一个 的意思是一个整体，不是说一个单词），但是在复句结构中经常说主语相同的句子被合并在一个复句的话就可以消掉重复的主语，比如 我上街+我买菜 变成 我上街买菜，这样。然后分句的话是说分句中的主语不一定是前面一句的主语，但是必定有联系，比如This is my dog, which I've had for three years. 这里which后面的主语是I，但是这两句话拆开来的话是This is my dog. I've had my dog for three years，which替代的是重复的部分，重复的是后面一句的宾语，两句的主语不一样，但是都很明确。你现在主要的问题就是说，1. 合在一起的并列的东西，主语经常是不一样的，这种就不能省略主语扔在一起，但是你就会把这些都放在一起，又没有分别指明主语，后果就是混乱。。比如结尾那一句中我指出的情况 2. 主语完全不明。。比如你有时用it，但是却不知道it指的东西不在那里，也就是说it后面那一半就没主语了。

总体来说就是你的思考是有些从一个东西跳到另外一个东西，你的语言也就跟着跳，主语已经变了或者没有了自己也不知道，这样。。所以我现在觉得你需要练习基础的句子，然后练习把基础的句子正确地合并成复句，一定要确定自己写出来的句子中主谓宾都很清晰。如果能做到这个，你的论述清晰度应该会有很大的提高。