An unavoidable question facing people from all fields is that how they treat the past achievements within that field. In some fields, people may find that the methods or experience they inherit from their predecessors have no long been been able to tackle the new situations they are dealing now. However, in other fields, some people are enjoying concluding and analysising the vast amount of past achievements that underlie the whole field, taking advantage of the derivative wisdom and getting inspiration.
As we entered elementary schools, or even ealier, we started our journey to the palace of knowledge, founded by hundreds of thousands of blocks of past achievements. Not only our knowledge, but also our attitudes towords the world and the ways we explore truths are influenced by these basic blocks. Although some of them may not be truth and even be ouverturned by us in someday, they still inspire us and give us a direction to work on. Hipposus, whose body was thrown into the sea later, discovered the irrational number, dropping a big boom to the field of mathematics. Even if he challanged the creed of Pythagoras, his discovery came from the Pythagorean Theorem. What this story tells us is that, although it may sounds contradictory, the prerequisite of making breakthrough is that we deeply understand the questions as well as its background, that's what we call, "past achievement".
For another thing, as Issaac Newton said, "If I have seen further, is it by standing on the shoulders of giants ". If truth only can been seen from the top of the mountain, then the past achievements is the steps under our feet. In 17th century, Decare invented analytic geomotry, introducing algebra to geometry. However, this creation did not come from nowhere. What Decare did was climbing the mountain and placing his amazing stepping-stones alone the stairs built by Euclid and his students.
Neverthless, we should always treat these experience and achievements critically instead of worship them blindly. In many fields, like computer science and internet, technology and demands are changing every day. In fields like this, what we should learn from the past is not the technology poeple used but the ways how they think. Only when we treat the past achievements critically can we not be fettered.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 232, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: been
...it from their predecessors have no long been been able to tackle the new situations they...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 249, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...decessors have no long been been able to tackle the new situations they are deali...
^^
Line 3, column 137, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...dge, founded by hundreds of thousands of blocks of past achievements. Not only ou...
^^
Line 3, column 854, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: that's
...he questions as well as its background, thats what we call, 'past achievement&ap...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 140, Rule ID: PRP_PAST_PART[4]
Message: Did you mean 'can be' or 'has been'?
Suggestion: can be; has been
...oulders of giants '. If truth only can been seen from the top of the mountain, then...
^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 37, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'this experience' or 'these experiences'?
Suggestion: this experience; these experiences
... Neverthless, we should always treat these experience and achievements critically instead of ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 409, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ents critically can we not be fettered.
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, however, if, may, so, still, then, well, another thing, as well as, for another thing
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.5258426966 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 12.4196629213 56% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 14.8657303371 94% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 11.3162921348 71% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 44.0 33.0505617978 133% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 49.0 58.6224719101 84% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 12.9106741573 62% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1958.0 2235.4752809 88% => OK
No of words: 381.0 442.535393258 86% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.13910761155 5.05705443957 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.41805628031 4.55969084622 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.91461514345 2.79657885939 104% => OK
Unique words: 221.0 215.323595506 103% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.580052493438 0.4932671777 118% => OK
syllable_count: 581.4 704.065955056 83% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59117977528 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 6.24550561798 80% => OK
Interrogative: 3.0 0.740449438202 405% => OK
Article: 2.0 4.99550561798 40% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 3.10617977528 225% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.77640449438 113% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.38483146067 160% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 20.2370786517 89% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 23.0359550562 91% => OK
Sentence length SD: 44.438645455 60.3974514979 74% => OK
Chars per sentence: 108.777777778 118.986275619 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.1666666667 23.4991977007 90% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.33333333333 5.21951772744 102% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 7.0 7.80617977528 90% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 10.2758426966 107% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 5.13820224719 78% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.83258426966 62% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.111106811511 0.243740707755 46% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.035685725071 0.0831039109588 43% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0435794168134 0.0758088955206 57% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0681481466823 0.150359130593 45% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0327810863969 0.0667264976115 49% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.4 14.1392134831 95% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 58.62 48.8420337079 120% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.1743820225 85% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.53 12.1639044944 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.62 8.38706741573 103% => OK
difficult_words: 95.0 100.480337079 95% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 11.8971910112 122% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.2143820225 93% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => 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: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.