If English is to be written in such a formulaic way that it can be appreciated and judged by robots, it might have been written by them in the first place.
Of course this is the logical step down the road that we have been going for years. For anybody who wants a dispiriting experience, then I'd suggested finding some of the examination marking guidelines that are around. They are often little more than an instructions for the examiner to look for one of a number of set phrases or words with precious little room for interpretation.
I came across one example paper (in biology), freely available on the net, where examinees were asked to state several reasons why some people object to genetic engineering (note, that's a social science question - the paper explicitly did not ask for rational, science-based objections). However, if you put "because is it unnatural" or "for religious reasons" then the guidance explicitly gave zero points. Well these might not be valid scientific objections, but they are most certainly those that many people use (which is what the question asked).
So increasingly what is being taught is how to pass the exam and not convey understanding. Box-ticking, formulaic and highly specific stock phrases are the norm in many exams.
- Asteroid's DINO KILLING SPREE just bad luck – boffins
- Just TWO climate committee MPs contradict IPCC: The two with SCIENCE degrees
- Stick a 4K in them: Super high-res TVs are DONE
- BEST BATTERY EVER: All lithium, all the time, plus a dash of carbon nano-stuff
- Review You didn't get the MeMO? Asus Pad 7 Android tab is ... not bad