"In any given field, the leading voices come from people who are motivated not by conviction
but by the desire to present opinions and ideas that differ from those held by the majority."
Leading voices around the globe in multifarious fields have always been talked about by the common people surrounding them. Their perspectives and world views have often been annealed by the criticisms and judgements and also by panegyrics and approbations. In my opinion, what most of us fail to realize that these in most cases, these leading voices are not driven by the urge to expatiate in a way different than the majority but by the littany of their experiences.
Firstly, the luminaries, often the leading voices in their fields have years of experience in the understanding of their craft or subject matter. For example a tennis player like Rafale Nadal who is the owner of a myriad of awards and accolades will have a different view and annotations about the game of tennis than an amateur or some professional with lesser years of action at the court. The views he would have would be based on the years of performance on the court and the various people he has faced as opponents in each game. Our malleable views about certain things are thus shaped by experiences. Nadal would be more conversant than any lesser experienced player about the intricacies of the sport by virtue of his time on the court. Thus, experience plays a great role in shaping these perspectives for these leading voices.
Secondly, the leading voices despise relying on conviction and rather prefer to rely on the reality they have tested for themselves. There are erudite scholars for example Dr. Richard Dawkins who has been the leading voices in the field of evolutionary biology. He contends the theory of evolution against creationism by solely relying on his heuristic approach of reasoning based on the archeological findings of the antideluvian times, whereas creationism has its fundamentals resting on convictions. This goes to prove that relying on conviction is one of the last resort a leading voice might rely on to shape their perspective in a domain or field that they are a champion of.
Lastly, with experience and years of observation comes the aggrandization of critical thinking. Pioneers and Luminaries like Dr. Carl Sagan have always stated the basis of their labile views about astrophysics and astronomy as critical thinking. Critical thinking and reasoning is one of the key features of the leading voices which the ordinary people lack. This makes the speeches and statements made in favour of some views ostentatious to the general public even though they were never meant to in the first place. Critical thinking requires going the extra mile in terms of thinking where the general public don't prefer allocating their time to. This results in the intellectual gap between these leading voices and us.
Though one would say that the leading voices might be moulded by some ulterior motives that are dissembled from the public, it is safe to say that those voices would be ephemeral. Without the profound understanding and the lack of observation and experience those voices will find it importunate to sustain for long. Thus, the above compel me to reason rather than believe, that leading voices are not motivated by conviction or the urge to present different perspectives than the majority.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 370, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
..., these leading voices are not driven by the urge to expatiate in a way different...
^^
Line 1, column 413, Rule ID: RATHER_THEN[2]
Message: Did you mean 'different 'from''? 'Different than' is often considered colloquial style.
Suggestion: from
...he urge to expatiate in a way different than the majority but by the littany of thei...
^^^^
Line 4, column 447, Rule ID: GENERAL_XX[1]
Message: Use simply 'public'.
Suggestion: public
...avour of some views ostentatious to the general public even though they were never meant to in...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 598, Rule ID: GENERAL_XX[1]
Message: Use simply 'public'.
Suggestion: public
...tra mile in terms of thinking where the general public dont prefer allocating their time to. T...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 613, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...ms of thinking where the general public dont prefer allocating their time to. This r...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, if, lastly, second, secondly, so, thus, whereas, for example, in most cases, in my opinion, in the first place
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.5258426966 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.4196629213 72% => OK
Conjunction : 21.0 14.8657303371 141% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 11.3162921348 97% => OK
Pronoun: 42.0 33.0505617978 127% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 87.0 58.6224719101 148% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 12.9106741573 93% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2681.0 2235.4752809 120% => OK
No of words: 532.0 442.535393258 120% => OK
Chars per words: 5.03947368421 5.05705443957 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.80261649409 4.55969084622 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.75731505928 2.79657885939 99% => OK
Unique words: 252.0 215.323595506 117% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.473684210526 0.4932671777 96% => OK
syllable_count: 832.5 704.065955056 118% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 6.24550561798 144% => OK
Article: 4.0 4.99550561798 80% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 3.10617977528 32% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.38483146067 68% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 20.2370786517 109% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 23.0359550562 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 45.3393084703 60.3974514979 75% => OK
Chars per sentence: 121.863636364 118.986275619 102% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.1818181818 23.4991977007 103% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.22727272727 5.21951772744 119% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 7.80617977528 64% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 10.2758426966 107% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 5.13820224719 156% => 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: 0.226462350356 0.243740707755 93% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0624875867459 0.0831039109588 75% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.054655977484 0.0758088955206 72% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.126873415717 0.150359130593 84% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0602329684881 0.0667264976115 90% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.4 14.1392134831 102% => 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: 12.25 12.1639044944 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.51 8.38706741573 101% => OK
difficult_words: 124.0 100.480337079 123% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 11.8971910112 122% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.2143820225 103% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.