In any field of endeavor, it is impossible to make a significant contribution without first being strongly influenced by past achievements within that field.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position.
Ingenuity represents the quality of being clever, original, and inventive. To be considered ingenuitive, one does not necessarily have to spend countless hours studying the work of earlier scholars. In fact, the most revolutionary inventions are often discovered by tyros that refused to squelch their creativity and surrender to archaic perspectives. Thus, significant contributions can be made within a certain field without first researching prior achievements and innovations. Furthermore, former knowledge does not accurately predict the cultivation of new ideas for two main reasons. Firstly, the excessive analysis of historic achievements ultimately taints future perspectives and corrupts the development of novel ideas. Secondly, ground-breaking innovations have been accidentally discovered in several fields by newcomers that lack any precognition at all.
Examining the accomplishments attained by exalted predecessors within a particular field can reveal valuable insights, deeper understandings, and an enhanced sense of appreciation. Nonetheless, exposure to this knowledge also permanently alters how future experts approach various subjects within their field of study. Bombarding fresh minds with ritualistic conventions and accepted theories inherently limits their freedom to be creative, explore new approaches, and discover unique solutions. This concept can be illustrated using a simple analogy. Suppose a map displayed on a classroom wall is slightly tilted; however, one student fails to notice this imperfection until his classmate alerts him of its existence. From this moment onward, the student is unable to study the map without noticing its sloped appearance. Burdening the next generation of scholars with the work of their forerunners has the potential to hinder the advancement of their studies, just as the student’s mindful awareness of the map’s flaw polluted his potential to notice different details.
Additionally, the spontaneous emergence of new developments is not influenced by past achievements within related fields. Many of history’s greatest inventions were unintentionally crafted by individuals that were not industry experts devoted to a particular subject. For example, the incidental inception of antibiotics robustly revolutionized the way humans destroy deadly microbes and combat infection. Nonetheless, the first antibiotics were discovered as the result of one microbiologist’s haphazard organization. After leaving a collection of Petri dishes in his laboratory overnight, the scientist was astonished to find a lack of bacterial growth on several plates. Upon further investigation, the cause of bacterial death observed on these plates was attributed to a primitive, natural antibiotic present within their agar. Hence, it was the microbiologist’s failure to maintain a clean workspace that lead to the identification of antibiotics, rather than his fundamental understanding of science.
In summary, a thorough comprehension of past achievements is not required to make significant contributions within a specific field. Two primary explanations support this argument. Firstly, remarkable contributions often arise when individuals are encouraged to embrace unique perspectives, independent of current viewpoints. Secondly, past achievements have little influence on the unexpected yet pioneering discoveries. Therefore, studying the past successes of former scholars does not guarantee future eminence in a given field.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-06-16 | HAN YEBIN | 50 | view |
| 2024-04-02 | guozhishan | 50 | view |
| 2023-09-01 | Sovendo Talapatra | 50 | view |
| 2023-07-18 | Jonginn | 83 | view |
| 2022-11-04 | raghavchauhan619 | 83 | view |
- As people rely more and more on technology to solve problems, the ability of humans to think for themselves will surely deteriorate.Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. 66
- In any field of endeavor it is impossible to make a significant contribution without first being strongly influenced by past achievements within that field Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement 75
- Scandals are useful because they focus our attention on problems in ways that no speaker or reformer ever could Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim In developing and supporting your position be su 66
- Claim: The best way to understand the character of a society is to examine the character of the men and women that the society chooses as its heroes or its role models.Reason: Heroes and role models reveal a society's highest ideals.Write a response 66
- In surveys Mason City residents rank water sports (swimming, boating and fishing) among their favorite recreational activities. The Mason River flowing through the city is rarely used for these pursuits, however, and the city park department devotes littl 69
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 1009, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...s fundamental understanding of science. In summary, a thorough comprehension of ...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, furthermore, hence, however, if, nonetheless, second, secondly, so, therefore, thus, as for, for example, in fact, in summary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.5258426966 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 12.4196629213 24% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 14.8657303371 61% => OK
Relative clauses : 5.0 11.3162921348 44% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 24.0 33.0505617978 73% => OK
Preposition: 74.0 58.6224719101 126% => OK
Nominalization: 20.0 12.9106741573 155% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3015.0 2235.4752809 135% => OK
No of words: 489.0 442.535393258 110% => OK
Chars per words: 6.16564417178 5.05705443957 122% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.70248278971 4.55969084622 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.48859192614 2.79657885939 125% => OK
Unique words: 302.0 215.323595506 140% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.617586912065 0.4932671777 125% => OK
syllable_count: 935.1 704.065955056 133% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.9 1.59117977528 119% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 6.24550561798 32% => OK
Article: 9.0 4.99550561798 180% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 3.10617977528 32% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.77640449438 169% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.38483146067 160% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 26.0 20.2370786517 128% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 23.0359550562 78% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 41.2028464577 60.3974514979 68% => OK
Chars per sentence: 115.961538462 118.986275619 97% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.8076923077 23.4991977007 80% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.84615384615 5.21951772744 112% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 10.2758426966 107% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 5.13820224719 136% => OK
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: 0.187870162259 0.243740707755 77% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0491387752041 0.0831039109588 59% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0678309464022 0.0758088955206 89% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.1164494378 0.150359130593 77% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0569430640359 0.0667264976115 85% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.0 14.1392134831 120% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 27.83 48.8420337079 57% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 13.0 7.92365168539 164% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.9 12.1743820225 114% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 18.51 12.1639044944 152% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.89 8.38706741573 130% => OK
difficult_words: 197.0 100.480337079 196% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 11.8971910112 97% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.2143820225 82% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.7820224719 110% => 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: 75.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.5 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.