Critical judgment of work in any given field has little value unless it comes from someone who is an expert in that field.
Nowadays, both of experts and ordinary people would like critically judge some issues. Some people would think that opinions from ordinary people would be useless because they could not give any scientific evidence. However, in my opinion, critical judgment from ordinary people could never have little value to some extent.
On the one hand, critical judgments from experts would provide a more accurate and holistic understanding for some issues. Take building structure as an example. When it comes to choosing wood structure or concrete structure for a certain building, ordinary people without certain knowledge would never give a convincing conclusion. Because to make a choice between these two structures person should have previous experience and holistic knowledge about these two specific structures. Furthermore, although some ordinary people don't have enough knowledge for certain field, they still make a judgment which might lead more innocent people to believe in some wrong understandings. For example, people have been argued about genetic foods for years, whereas this argument happened mostly between ordinary people instead of experts. Without advanced knowledge about genetic foods, how can someone draw a conclusion that they are harmful for human beings' health?
On the other hand, it is true that in above fields you can never believe in what ordinary people say, but in some other fields, such as music and art, views from ordinary people would make a difference. For instance, many people love jazz music even if they never learn anything about it. To some extent, musicians compose songs because they want to circulate their songs among ordinary people. Therefore, as for music, musicians could never ignore what ordinary people think. Secondly, when it comes to the popularity of paintings, as same as songs, ordinary people's views are very vital for artists. For example, many artists have a preference for impressionism, but ordinary people cannot understand this. Therefore, they paintings are so controversial that people won't praise some artists until they died for many years.
In order to make full use of judgments from both the ordinary people and experts. The prior thing for government to do is educating ordinary people to gain a habit of critical thinking. That is to say, people should learn to recognize whether a judgment is right. Secondly, government should prevent some media from broadcasting misleading judgments because information from media go viral quickly.
Everyone have the right to judge things and issues, but these judgments won't always be tenable. It's untenable to say judgments from people who are not experts are undoubtedly wrong since this conclusion is maybe from someone who are not experts either.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 189, Rule ID: AFFORD_VB[1]
Message: This verb is used with the infinitive: 'to wood'
Suggestion: to wood
...s an example. When it comes to choosing wood structure or concrete structure for a c...
^^^^
Line 2, column 530, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...thermore, although some ordinary people dont have enough knowledge for certain field...
^^^^
Line 2, column 946, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'beings'' or 'being's'?
Suggestion: beings'; being's
...clusion that they are harmful for human beings health? On the other hand, it is true...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 10, Rule ID: MASS_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Consider using third-person verb forms for singular and mass nouns: 'has'.
Suggestion: has
...from media go viral quickly. Everyone have the right to judge things and issues, b...
^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['but', 'furthermore', 'however', 'if', 'may', 'second', 'secondly', 'so', 'still', 'therefore', 'whereas', 'as for', 'for example', 'for instance', 'such as', 'in my opinion', 'it is true', 'on the other hand', 'that is to say']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.243298969072 0.240241500013 101% => OK
Verbs: 0.136082474227 0.157235817809 87% => OK
Adjectives: 0.115463917526 0.0880659088768 131% => OK
Adverbs: 0.059793814433 0.0497285424764 120% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0309278350515 0.0444667217837 70% => OK
Prepositions: 0.129896907216 0.12292977631 106% => OK
Participles: 0.0123711340206 0.0406280797675 30% => Some participles wanted.
Conjunctions: 2.56279624012 2.79330140395 92% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0288659793814 0.030933414821 93% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.0016655270985 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.0762886597938 0.0997080785238 77% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0329896907216 0.0249443105267 132% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0164948453608 0.0148568991511 111% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2772.0 2732.02544248 101% => OK
No of words: 434.0 452.878318584 96% => OK
Chars per words: 6.38709677419 6.0361032391 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.56428161445 4.58838876751 99% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.421658986175 0.366273622748 115% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.322580645161 0.280924506359 115% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.228110599078 0.200843997647 114% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.122119815668 0.132149295362 92% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.56279624012 2.79330140395 92% => OK
Unique words: 217.0 219.290929204 99% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.5 0.48968727796 102% => OK
Word variations: 56.1911266798 55.4138127331 101% => OK
How many sentences: 23.0 20.6194690265 112% => OK
Sentence length: 18.8695652174 23.380412469 81% => OK
Sentence length SD: 38.4005848254 59.4972553346 65% => OK
Chars per sentence: 120.52173913 141.124799967 85% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.8695652174 23.380412469 81% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.826086956522 0.674092028746 123% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.94800884956 101% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.21349557522 77% => OK
Readability: 51.1276297335 51.4728631049 99% => OK
Elegance: 1.7 1.64882698954 103% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.16417907162 0.391690518653 42% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.108825407687 0.123202303941 88% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0664886714249 0.077325440228 86% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.482600631559 0.547984918172 88% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.123927969248 0.149214159877 83% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0561558482479 0.161403998019 35% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0516910143071 0.0892212321368 58% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.30810892787 0.385218514788 80% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0426803702558 0.0692045440612 62% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.10828243519 0.275328986314 39% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0247819076969 0.0653680567796 38% => The ideas may be duplicated in paragraphs.
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 10.4325221239 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 5.30420353982 113% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.88274336283 102% => OK
Positive topic words: 11.0 7.22455752212 152% => OK
Negative topic words: 6.0 3.66592920354 164% => OK
Neutral topic words: 3.0 2.70907079646 111% => OK
Total topic words: 20.0 13.5995575221 147% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader.
Rates: 16.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: This is not the final score. 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.