When a country develops its technology, the traditional skills and ways of life die out. It is pointless to try and keep them alive.
To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?
With the development of technology, some people say it is unnecessary to keep the traditional skills and ways of life to be alive in modern society. I partially agree with this opinion and it will be discussed in the following paragraphs.
Firstly, technology increases efficiency and productivity in industry and agriculture. By using machinery, people use less labor but have higher productivity. It also helps them to finish the same task in a shorter time. For example, in the past, farmers used to plow fields by cows, sow and mow the grain by hand. The harvest could support a few families for a year. However, with the help of tractors and other agriculture equipment, farmers are able to provide food for hundreds of households within the same time.
Secondly, technology also helps to protect people from danger. Nowadays, robots perform many production line tasks in factories. For instance, in car factories, simply by pressing buttons, mechanists could lift heavy car parts without doing any lifting.
However, technology can't replace traditional skills in some areas. Machinery may not be able to achieve the same high quality as handcraft. For example, some parts of a Rolex watch need to be made by hands because of its sophisticated internal mechanisms. In addition, some traditional ways of life are not only long-established lifestyles, but also have cultural significances. For instance, in the Mid-Autumn Festival in China, families gather and have dinner together. This meal is very important to Chinese families.
All in all, technology has its advantages in increasing efficiency, productivity and preventing harms in modern industry. However, it can not take place of traditional skills and ways of life totally.
Hi!
In the first paragraph, I would suggest that you give a basic and general overview stating the specific reasons about why you "partially" agree with the statement. I would leave out the statement where you say that you will discuss it in the following paragraphs, this should be obvious to the reader, so mentioning it is not needed, and it detracts from your overall professionalism.
I would suggest that you don't start out your second and third paragraphs with "firstly," and "secondly." These transitions don't seem necessary as they don't help much to organize and make the ideas flow as transitions should. I would leave out firstly, and then put something similar to "In addition," in front of the second paragraph
In the second paragraph, I think you do a good job of stating your point of increased efficiency and productivity, and then providing an example with a detailed explanation. I think you should try to conclude the paragraph by relating what you have already said back to the topic. So maybe talk about how the population of modern society is growing quickly, so then technology needs to grow in order to meet the production needs, as that growing population needs to eat in order to survive. It might seem like it should be obvious to the reader, or another way of saying it is, is might seem like that they should be able infer that link to the main topic by themselves. However it is my opinion that it is a lot more appealing if you make it clear to the reader yourself.
Also in the second paragraph, I think you should state it clearly that you're comparing how technology has improved agriculture and manufacturing versus how agriculture and manufacturing have been done using traditional skills in the past. Like in the first sentence, "Firstly, technology increases efficiency and productivity in industry and agriculture," maybe add at the end, "as compared to the traditional skills used in industry and agriculture in the past."
The third paragraph needs more explanation on it's ideas, with regards to giving the reader what they need to know in order to relate back to the topic.Like the second paragraph, make sure you clearly make those connections back the main topic yourself. and make it clear that you're comparing the new ways to the old ways. For example, you could talk about how humans used to have to do specific jobs like screwing in the tires, or painting the car, which put them in more danger by breathing in paint fumes or having the car fall on top of them. And then you can mention the invention of specific technologies which have enabled them to bypass these dangers, like totally mechanically controlled power-screwdrivers and paint sprayers, and then you could explain that those inventions allow humans to be away from the dangers of fumes and falling cars.
I would separate the fourth paragraph into two different paragraphs, into one about detailed work and one about culture. Then, similarly to what I've mentioned before, you should make sure that you explain everything that the reader needs to know in order to relate back to the topic, clearly link those explanations yourself without assuming that the reader will be able to do it, and make it clear that you're comparing the new ways and the old ways. I won't give you specific examples this time, but leave you to make an attempt at it yourself.
Overall, I think you made some good points. I hope my advice helps!
