Critical Analysis Of An Essay On Contemporary Issues

Critical Analysis of an Essay on Contemporary Issues

Word Length: 750 words minimum; 1000 words maximum. Instructions: • Critical Analysis is an examination of how logically an author has argued his or her case. You are considering whether the argument can stand up to close, objective examination. • Your task is to assess the validity of an argument, outline its limits, and explain why it does or does not seem sound, logical, or well-supported. • The Critical Analysis Assignment asks you to choose one of the essays and write at least 750 word essay in response. • You can choose from any of the following essays:

• Bruce Mau, “Imagining the Future”, The Walrus
• George Monbiot, “In an age of robots, schools are teaching our children to be redundant”, The Guardian
• Bruce Mau, “Is the World Getting Better or Worse?”, The Walrus
• Kim Stanley Robinson, “Empty half the Earth of its humans. It's the only way to save the planet”, The Guardian
• Kate Harris, “Where Not to Travel in 2019, or Ever”, The Walrus

Consider the following as you read your chosen essay… • What assumptions has the author made about the topic and about their readers? Note that making incorrect assumptions (faulty premises) in these areas makes the logical foundation unsound and can undermine the validity of the entire argument. • What evidence has the author used to support his or her thesis? Is the evidence accurate and authoritative? How do you know? Is there any evidence that the author should have included but did not?

An argument can be logical only if it offers adequate, appropriate supporting evidence. • Do you think the author has made an argument that most people would find persuasive? If so, why? If not, what error did he or she make? • When we write, we write from our own perspective or point of view. This is called “bias”. What is the author’s bias? How do you know? What would be different in the article if the author had a different bias? • What is your own bias as a reader? How does who you are influence how you read the essay?

Paper For Above instruction

In this critical analysis, I will examine George Monbiot’s essay titled “In an age of robots, schools are teaching our children to be redundant,” published in The Guardian. The essay, written in 2018, explores the impact of automation and artificial intelligence on employment and education systems. Monbiot argues that as technological advancements threaten job security, the education system must evolve to prepare children for a future where traditional employment may be scarce. His thesis centers around the urgent need to rethink educational priorities to ensure societal resilience in an increasingly automated world. The essay appears aimed at a broad readership concerned with technological progress, economic stability, and the future of work, aiming to raise awareness and provoke policy discussion. Monbiot’s premise is that current educational models are outdated and inadequate, assuming that technological change will significantly disrupt employment and that educational reform can mitigate these impacts.

The core argument presented by Monbiot hinges on the assumption that automation will cause widespread unemployment, rendering many jobs obsolete. He supports this claim with references to recent technological trends and expert predictions about AI’s progression, citing studies and reports from credible sources such as the Oxford Martin School and the World Economic Forum. For example, he states, “According to Oxford researchers, up to 47% of jobs in the United States are at risk of automation in the next two decades” (Monbiot, 2018). This evidence is both accurate and authoritative, drawn from well-regarded research institutions, which bolsters the validity of his concern that automation presents a significant challenge for future employment. However, the essay could have strengthened its argument by engaging with counter-arguments that suggest technological unemployment may be overstated or temporary, as some economists contend that new job creation often accompanies technological shifts.

Monbiot’s persuasive tone hinges on the assumption that educational institutions have not adapted quickly enough to these impending changes. He criticizes the current system for emphasizing rote learning and standardized testing, which he believes do not equip students with skills relevant for a world dominated by AI and automation. His critique assumes that society universally shares this view and that reform is both possible and desirable. Nonetheless, the essay displays a bias towards technological determinism—the belief that technological change drives societal transformation more than human agency or policy can counteract it. As a reader with a background in education policy, I am aware that this perspective may overlook the resilience of educational frameworks and the potential for curriculum adaptation.

Furthermore, Monbiot advocates for a shift towards teaching skills such as creativity, critical thinking, and emotional intelligence—qualities he argues are less susceptible to automation. While this aligns with current educational discourse emphasizing 21st-century skills, his argument assumes that these skills will be sufficient to ensure employability in the future. He does not fully consider the economic implications of widespread automation or the political challenges in implementing radical educational reforms. From my perspective, while his call for innovation is compelling, the essay could better address potential barriers, such as political inertia, funding limitations, and the variability of educational infrastructure globally.

In conclusion, George Monbiot’s essay offers a compelling and urgent warning about the impact of automation on employment and the need for educational reform. Its strength lies in the use of credible evidence and a clear articulation of the societal changes necessary to adapt. However, its logical foundation would benefit from engaging with alternative viewpoints and addressing practical challenges to reform. Overall, the essay is effective in stimulating critical reflection on future societal needs, although it could be improved by acknowledging complexities and uncertainties surrounding technological change and policy implementation. Recognizing my own bias as someone interested in education policy, I find Monbiot’s emphasis on proactive adaptation persuasive, but I remain cautious about overly deterministic views that overlook potential societal resilience and innovation.

References

• Monbiot, G. (2018). In an age of robots, schools are teaching our children to be redundant. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/
• Brynjolfsson, E., & McAfee, A. (2014). The Second Machine Age: Work, Progress, and Prosperity in a Time of Brilliant Technologies. W. W. Norton & Company.
• Frey, C. B., & Osborne, M. A. (2017). The future of employment: How susceptible are jobs to computerisation? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 114, 254-280.
• Autor, D. H. (2015). Why are there still so many jobs? The history and future of workplace automation. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 29(3), 3-30.
• OECD. (2019). The Future of Work: OECD Employment Outlook 2019. OECD Publishing.
• World Economic Forum. (2020). The Future of Jobs Report 2020. Geneva: World Economic Forum.
• Arntz, M., Gregory, T., & Zierahn, U. (2016). The Risk of Automation for Jobs in OECD Countries. OECD Social, Employment, and Migration Working Papers.
• Illich, I. (1970). Deschooling Society. Harper & Row.
• Schwab, K. (2016). The Fourth Industrial Revolution. Crown Business.
• Robinson, K. (2015). Creative Schools: The Grassroots Revolution That’s Changing the Way We Learn. TED Books.