Advances in technology have become so widely accepted in today’s culture that very few people are willing to pause to consider the consequences. People get so excited about what new technologies can offer that they forget to question whether there might be any negative effects. Without caution and deliberation, replacing the natural with the mechanical would undoubtedly be disasterous.
简评：常规开头，引出主题(技术进步advances in technology，隐约对应intelligent machines)，表明观点(应当谨慎caution and deliberation，否则后果很严重disasterous)。
The economic implications of the potential mechanical takeover alone should be enough to dissuade anyone from moving too fast. In the event the robots are more widely used in the workplace, humans would surely be replaced. At first, businesses would benefit from the efficiency of robots, but eventually a depressed job market would lead to a population that struggles just to feed themselves and their families, let alone purchase the products these robots make. In the long run, society will suffer if it does not take care to prevent the economic consequences of giving everything over to machines.
评析：本段反驳Perspective Two，先让步，承认会提升效率(At first, businesses would benefit from the efficiency of robots)，再反驳(but eventually…)。值得注意的是反驳部分的逻辑依然是由个人(a population that struggles)到社会(society will suffer)，这一思路第一篇Sample Essay 6也采用过，但更加精彩。本段略逊一筹还表现在“society will suffer”没有深入展开，只是简单粗暴地下了个结论。
Our careless use of automation has already taken a toll on our culture. People have been interacting with automation in nearly every aspect of their lives, whether it be shopping, banking, or the use of a telephone. The effect of this is obvious: basic respect for our fellow man is all but absent today because of increased interaction with automation. Why treat a machine with kindness? It suffers no emotional or psychological damage. In a culture saturated with automation, we get used to treating machines rudely, and we begin to treat each other rudely. This of course leads to all sorts of issues, like intolerence and incivility, and in the long run, results in the complete degradation of culture.
简评：本段支持Perspective One，用了很常规的论证思路：生活日益“自动化”→尊重缺失→粗暴待人→礼崩乐坏(intolerence and incivility & complete degradation of culture)。值得注意的是，本段也开始显现出本文的一大缺点：啰嗦。比如because of increased interaction with automation，语义上前文中People have been interacting with automation几乎完全重叠。删掉反而更干净。再比如本段末句中的incivility，其含义就是a rude or impolite attitude or behavior(韦氏词典释义)。从这个意义上讲，原文中写treat each other rudely导致issues like incivility就有点莫名其妙了，逻辑上的起点和终点完全重合。而我也正是从这一段开始不喜欢这篇文章的。
Even in the face of these obstacles, some people argue that the increasing intelligence of today’s machines is a good thing. After all, machine power can decrease the human work load. Computer processers double in power and ability every year. Computers are projected to reach human intelligence by as soon as 2025. The implications of this shift are unknown, but one thing is for certain. We are moving into this change too fast to anticipate and prevent damage to the human species. We are approaching this change too quickly for any sort of safety net to be built. Because of this, it is important that we as a species slow down our technological development so that we might consider all the implications of a change this big. We must figure out how to handle negative societal and cultural consequences before we embrace total integration of automated, intelligent machines.
简评：本段反驳Perspective Three，写法和第二段一样也是先让步(After all)后反驳(but one thing is for certain)。但是让步部分并没有对Perspective Three中核心关键词“challenge our long-standing ideas what humans are or can be”和“pushes both humans and machines toward new, unimagined possibilities”进行回应，仅仅是针对This is good举了个小例子(Computers)，怎么说都有点避重就轻的嫌疑。此外，反驳部分也略显草率。没有进行正面反击，只是一味强调不可操之过急，应该考虑到前两段说的negative societal and cultural consequences。
Decreasing the speed with which we incorporate mechanical influence is important because of the potential dangers that lurk in blind acceptance. Not only does the preference of the mechanical over the natural interfere with the job market and the economy, but its use also has the potential to seriously degrade our culture as a whole. In combination with the uncertainty surrounding the increasing intelligence of machines, it is most assuredly better for the human species that technological progress be slowed so that we can, if necessary, prevent additional damage.