Being a research student myself, I strongly propound the statement that one must be strongly influenced by past achievements of a field in order to make a significant contribution to the field. This statement, however, although nearly always true, is, as is possibly every other assertion, subject to some exceptions and grey area.
A field of endeavor is nothing but an aggregation of the volley of contributions done to it by a raft of people. What we call "Physics" today can be seen as the cumulation of discrete ideas of great scientists like Socrates, Archimedes, Newton, Einstein, etc. If one is not influenced by the past contributions of the field, then it is tantamount to saying that one is not influenced by the field, or one has no interest in the field. Someone who cannot appreciate the principle of gravity, or the ingenious simplicity of newton's laws of motion, or the prevasiveness of Einstein's theory of relativity, surely does not understand either of these. This is not to say that one must always approve of the past work that has been done in the field. Being dissatisfied with an idea does not prevent one from being influenced or being able to appreciate the thought behind it. In fact, dissatisfaction, just like appreciation, is crucial in contributing something novel to the field. But, on the other hand, not being moved by the sheer ingenuity of the past contributions raises questions upon the understanding one has of the field itself. It is also very important to be abreast of all the previous work that has ever happened in the area. There have been numerous cases of amateurs and fledglings coming up with ideas "of their own", only to realise later that these "novel" ideas were established or refuted some hundreds of years ago.
The support for the statement asserting the importance of influence from past achievements does not imply that one must be aware of or appreciate every single thing that has happened in the area. Often a subject branches out into many discrete yet overlapping topics which a scholar in today's world specializes in. Having a basic background knowledge, so as to be able to build upon the existing and not do redundant work, is, however, crucial. Finally, when stumbling upon an idea one may not realize the ramifications of it and its use in subjects not even existent at the time. Karawaski's multiplication algorithm lies at the heart of efficient computations today. While originally a mathematician, this algorithm was just a mind trick for efficient calculation for school students. Karawaski, who did not even know about anything such as computers, managed to make one of the most fundamental contribution towards the existence of computers.
Thus while being influenced by the past achievements in a field is crucial for making a significant contribution to it, there might exist not such achievements at all when the field is being developed.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 361, Rule ID: IT_IS_JJ_TO_VBG[1]
Message: Did you mean 'say'?
Suggestion: say
... of the field, then it is tantamount to saying that one is not influenced by the field...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 353, Rule ID: SO_AS_TO[1]
Message: Use simply 'to'
Suggestion: to
...n. Having a basic background knowledge, so as to be able to build upon the existing and ...
^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 1, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
... towards the existence of computers. Thus while being influenced by the past achi...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, however, if, may, so, then, thus, while, as to, in fact, such as, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 26.0 19.5258426966 133% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 12.4196629213 56% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 14.8657303371 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 11.3162921348 115% => OK
Pronoun: 25.0 33.0505617978 76% => OK
Preposition: 82.0 58.6224719101 140% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 12.9106741573 116% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2468.0 2235.4752809 110% => OK
No of words: 488.0 442.535393258 110% => OK
Chars per words: 5.05737704918 5.05705443957 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.70007681154 4.55969084622 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.14130187648 2.79657885939 112% => OK
Unique words: 251.0 215.323595506 117% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.514344262295 0.4932671777 104% => OK
syllable_count: 769.5 704.065955056 109% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 6.24550561798 80% => OK
Article: 2.0 4.99550561798 40% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 3.10617977528 161% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.77640449438 169% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.38483146067 68% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 20.2370786517 99% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 23.0359550562 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 39.6075750331 60.3974514979 66% => OK
Chars per sentence: 123.4 118.986275619 104% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.4 23.4991977007 104% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.15 5.21951772744 99% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 7.80617977528 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 10.2758426966 117% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 0.0 5.13820224719 0% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.83258426966 166% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.259935647178 0.243740707755 107% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.082216492412 0.0831039109588 99% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0940768984297 0.0758088955206 124% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.198544464326 0.150359130593 132% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0778590394839 0.0667264976115 117% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.6 14.1392134831 103% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 47.12 48.8420337079 96% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.1743820225 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.36 12.1639044944 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.68 8.38706741573 103% => OK
difficult_words: 119.0 100.480337079 118% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 11.8971910112 122% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.2143820225 103% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.7820224719 127% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Better to have 5/6 paragraphs with 3/4 arguments. And try always support/against one side but compare two sides, like this:
para 1: introduction
para 2: reason 1. address both of the views presented for reason 1
para 3: reason 2. address both of the views presented for reason 2
para 4: reason 3. address both of the views presented for reason 3
para 5: reason 4. address both of the views presented for reason 4 (optional)
para 6: conclusion.
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.