【正文】 language。 certainly our values have taken a severe blow. However, we are inarguably more efficient in our badness these days. We39。s gripped in their palms, and omniscient, omnipresent CNN gleaming in their eyeballs, it39。t for the invention of new technological devices, I wouldn39。t deteriorating, it39。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 — Score 3 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 dibilitating illnesses and diseases such as alzheimer39。s usage of the more significant terms from the prompt: technically (technologically), humans, thinking (think) and deteriorating (deteriorate). Such usage is the only clear evidence of understanding. Meaning aside, the brevity of the essay (one sentence) clearly indicates the writer39。 it doesn’t make students ask questions like, “Why?” and “How?” School’s real purpose is teaching people to learn, not just teaching them a set group of facts. By teaching them to learn, students can continue doing so, they can extend skills from one area of knowledge to another. This type of learning fosters creativity that can be used not only in math or science or English, but in art or music or creative writing. Teaching a brain to go beyond being a file cabi for facts is the best way to teach creativity. Creativity is too often assumed to be something only for the arts. It is creativity that results in innovation and it is innovation that has resulted in the greatest achievements of humanity in the sciences and humanities alike. Finally, the education system of a country is designed to put all children on a level playing field. Though this is only an ideal, it is a noble ideal. If the school curriculum bees standardized, children who have highly educated parents, or more money to buy books outside of school, or more resources for tutors or private schools will immediately gain a foothold. Poorer students from uneducated families in the current American school system are already at a disadvantage, but at least now there is hope through variety that something can reach out to them and inspire them. There is hope that they can find a class that interests them. If the curriculum bees rigid and standardized, it is these disadvantaged students who fall through the cracks. There are many reasons not to standardize the curriculum. The uniqueness of students and teachers is the most obvious, but students from less educated backgrounds will suffer the most. The creativity of a nation as a whole would fall with a standardized curriculum. Most importantly though is the question of who and what? Who chooses the curriculum? What is important enough that it must be taught? These questions assume that there is some infallible mittee that can foresee all and know what knowledge will。 if say, the English curriculum of all high schools were standardized, then a book that one teacher teaches excellently and therefore inspires students to read more and learn on their own might be eliminated, and although that teacher ought to be capable enough to teach the curriculum books, his or her students will still be missing out on what might have been a great learning experience. It also limits how much of the teacher’s unique knowledge he or she can bring to the classroom. It is these inspirational books or experiences that allow teachers to reach students。s is now being a reality. This shows our initiative as humans to better our health demonstrates 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 inter and cell phones. In the past humans had to seek out information in many different enviroments and aspects of life. Now humans can sit in a chair and type anything into a puter and get an answer. Our reliance on this type of technology can be detrimental if not regulated and regularily 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 puter technology, that we as a species will advance further by utilizing the opportunity of puter technology as well as the other sources of information outside of a puter. Supplementing our knowledge with inter 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 from a specific field (medicine and stemcell research). Development of the second point is hindered by a lack of specificity and anization. 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 overreliance 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 adv