Rate the following essay on its writing, argument, and language skills:
As a student, if I don't understand something in class, I will ask someone about it. Whether that is a teacher, a student, or a parent there is almost always someone who knows. If any one of these reliable sources does not know, I can most likely look it up on one of my devices that has the internet. If we were to introduce the new FACS technology, it may have unindended lasting impacts which could be detrimental to our society.

It was mentioned in the passage on paragraph 6 that " 'A classroom computer could recognize when a student is becoming confused or bored. Then it could modiy the lesson, like an effective human instructor.' "

The first reason that it could be bad for our society as a whole is that it is not the computer's duty to explain how to do everything and to change to our will. While computers were made to help us, it cannot be our only source of information. On the other hand, teachers are st school for the sole purpose of helping you learn. It is their actual job to be there to help you learn things. While computers are a tool to help achieve this goal, there are other ways to learn about things and get them explained to you.

When you are in highschool, many teachers and parents will say things to you along the lines of "In the real world" and " Highschool is preparing you for the real world". Later on in life, "in the real world", if you get bored at a job you cannot just change what you are doing. You have to continue on with it because it is your job. If we implemented this system now in schools, many kids and teens would get in their mindset that if they are bored or don't understand something, things will change for them. Kids should not rely on a computer to help them understand everything. There are teachers, classmates, parents, and other adults who can help.

The second reason why this could be bad for our society is the accessibility. Not every school has computers and not every class uses them. If we were to implement this software, it could be giving an unfair advantage to the students who had acsess to it. There are still plenty of schools that may not have a computer in every classroom. Similarly, not all students and parents can afford this kind of technology. Because of how new and high-tech this software is it most likely will cost more money to be put into effect. This would cause the schools with more money to be able to get it while the schools with less funding and less money to be pushed aside and not get it. This causes the students at the schools that cannnot afford it to have a disadvantage.

The third and final reason why this could be bad for our society as a whole is simply that people may become less sensitive to reading other peoples emotions. Without needing to have face- to- face human interactions to see how people are feeling, it could result in a decline of being able to recognize emotions in facial expressions.

I learned a few chords on the ukulele this summer. I could piece together a song or two. Now after a few months, I can't remember the first thing about playing those chords. This example shows that if you learn something then don't do it for an extended period of time, it will take a while to relearn how to do it. Although reading emotions is nothing like playing ukulele, the same holds true; if you learn something, and rely on something else to help you do it, it is going to be hard for you to re-learn how to do it again.

People also have a right to privacy and some people may not enjoy those particular rights being breached. I am a person who does not let all of my emotions show. Other people may bottle these feelings up in hopes that nobody will see. If people want to keep in how they feel, they should be able to do that as it is what they want.

Because it is not the computers duty to exlain everything to you, not everyone has accsess to this kind of software, and people may lose their sensitivity to the fine art of emotion reading, I am in opposition of implementing this FACS technology.

Score: 5