Claim: Though often considered an objective pursuit, learning about the historical past requires creativity.
Reason: Because we can never know the past directly, we must reconstruct it by imaginatively interpreting historical accounts, documents, and artifacts.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim and the reason on which the claim is based.
History is always an intriguing subject, clouded in many mysteries that may very well be impossible to solve. Depending on the record-making habits of the studied people, any historical event could range from well-known to nearly unnoticed. Some may argue that creativity is needed to find the correct sequence of events from the limited materials that remain, but this should always remain as speculation instead of solid knowledge.
The knowledge we had about our past is plentiful, perhaps too much for all of us to analyze fully, but it is woefully inadequate in some circumstances where records are scarce. As a rule of thumb, more records remain from closer times, as the quality of records improve over the ages, and the probability of loss similarly decreases. We know a lot about the last few hundred years, as information is recorded in print easily by then, and formal associations such as long-standing libraries protect them well. It can be confidently said that most facts recorded by contemporary individuals in the 20th century is still to be found somewhere. However, as we look back into the far past, these clear recollections quickly become a mist of vague descriptions made by people in societies alien to us in the modern world. Many-times far too little is known about a certain event, and the reconstruction is simply impossible, regardless of imagination.
Of course, creativity can indeed often fill the gaps of an obscure event. Nevertheless, whenever creativity plays a role in the reconstruction of an event, what truly necessitates a discovery is the diligent search of evidence that follows. The speculation created would, if true, affect other parts of history in previously unknown ways, and many pieces of evidence must be gathered before it is considered a probable theory. Without this critical step, the speculation is only fit for a book on the market, instead of acceptable research. Thus it is shown that even though creativity is accepted in academia, it must always be subordinate to the powers of the objective. If the records are broken beyond the bounds of solid logic, it is better to present the pieces of facts as themselves instead of attempting for a made-up story.
All in all, the ability of imagination is welcomed, but not necessary in the development of historical skills. Instead, the excavation of knowledge from the limited known materials is much important for a scholar in this field of study.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 251, Rule ID: MASS_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Possible agreement error - use third-person verb forms for singular and mass nouns: 'argues'.
Suggestion: argues
...ell-known to nearly unnoticed. Some may argue that creativity is needed to find the c...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 541, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
...market, instead of acceptable research. Thus it is shown that even though creativity...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, however, if, look, may, nevertheless, similarly, so, still, then, thus, well, of course, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 23.0 19.5258426966 118% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.4196629213 72% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 14.8657303371 47% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 7.0 11.3162921348 62% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 24.0 33.0505617978 73% => OK
Preposition: 64.0 58.6224719101 109% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 12.9106741573 101% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2052.0 2235.4752809 92% => OK
No of words: 405.0 442.535393258 92% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.06666666667 5.05705443957 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.48604634366 4.55969084622 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.97309379168 2.79657885939 106% => OK
Unique words: 233.0 215.323595506 108% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.575308641975 0.4932671777 117% => OK
syllable_count: 649.8 704.065955056 92% => 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: 5.0 4.99550561798 100% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 3.10617977528 225% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 7.0 1.77640449438 394% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 4.38483146067 68% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 20.2370786517 84% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 23.0 23.0359550562 100% => OK
Sentence length SD: 31.7938863789 60.3974514979 53% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 120.705882353 118.986275619 101% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.8235294118 23.4991977007 101% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.94117647059 5.21951772744 114% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 14.0 10.2758426966 136% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 5.13820224719 39% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.83258426966 21% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.162502862053 0.243740707755 67% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0468482330554 0.0831039109588 56% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0375435242813 0.0758088955206 50% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0817972065724 0.150359130593 54% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0334334348936 0.0667264976115 50% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.4 14.1392134831 102% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.13 48.8420337079 99% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.1743820225 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.42 12.1639044944 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.87 8.38706741573 106% => OK
difficult_words: 105.0 100.480337079 104% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 11.8971910112 122% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.2143820225 100% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => 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: 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.