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.
Children are often taught about the past achievements of great individuals that changed the due course of history. In school we were taught about a famous Italian astronomer by the name of Galileo Galilei who came up with the theory that Earth is not the center of our universe, but it is the Sun and was he successful in proving it. This theory contradicted the orthodox belief of that time. This clearly proves that it is not necessary that to make a successful contribution, individuals need to be strongly influenced by past achievements within the field.
The Wright brothers are known for their valuable contribution to the aviation industry. They are the first pair of individuals who were able to fly a plane and prove to the world that commute through air is possible. They often faced the brunt and scrutiny of the people around them who used to ridicule the idea of an airborne vehicle or machine. These individuals had no past achievements to look up to but this did not stop them from discovering something that changed the way people commute. The famous astronomer Galileo Galilei also faced a lot of backlash from the orthodox community during his time because he dared to go against the preaching’s of the church. The priests of the church did not value this new discovery by Galileo since it went against the mandates of those times. Galileo still unfazed by this backlash, went against the church and was able to prove his theory that the sun forms the center of our universe and not the moon.
Achievements in a field can also be attributed to the past failures that have taken place in the same field. Shortcomings in a study and the observations that we record out of them often helps individuals later in the future. It helps them to study the key aspects of study which could determine the reason for the experiment to go astray from its desired result. This helps researchers be mindful of the shortcomings that were faced earlier. These shortcomings are by no means success stories but they often provide a basis on top which a study can be continued and probably lead to a fruitful conclusion.
In sum, I am a staunch advocate of the fact that it is entirely possible for an individual to help contribute to a field without being influenced by past success stories. Past failures can help a person derive valuable inferences from the situation and provide the individual an impetus to go on and do something great in a field, that has been never done before.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 261, Rule ID: NOUN_AROUND_IT[1]
Message: Consider using 'the surrounding people'?
Suggestion: the surrounding people
...y often faced the brunt and scrutiny of the people around them who used to ridicule the idea of an air...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, look, so, still
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.5258426966 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 12.4196629213 40% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 14.8657303371 87% => OK
Relative clauses : 18.0 11.3162921348 159% => OK
Pronoun: 46.0 33.0505617978 139% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 75.0 58.6224719101 128% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 12.9106741573 39% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2063.0 2235.4752809 92% => OK
No of words: 435.0 442.535393258 98% => OK
Chars per words: 4.74252873563 5.05705443957 94% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.56690854021 4.55969084622 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.68991451741 2.79657885939 96% => OK
Unique words: 208.0 215.323595506 97% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.47816091954 0.4932671777 97% => OK
syllable_count: 643.5 704.065955056 91% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59117977528 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 6.24550561798 160% => OK
Article: 3.0 4.99550561798 60% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 3.10617977528 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.38483146067 68% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 20.2370786517 89% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 23.0359550562 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 39.8901268765 60.3974514979 66% => OK
Chars per sentence: 114.611111111 118.986275619 96% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.1666666667 23.4991977007 103% => OK
Discourse Markers: 1.83333333333 5.21951772744 35% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
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 : 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: 0.159326294011 0.243740707755 65% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0528952093312 0.0831039109588 64% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0699324097571 0.0758088955206 92% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.105846951991 0.150359130593 70% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0452625490525 0.0667264976115 68% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.0 14.1392134831 92% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 55.58 48.8420337079 114% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.1743820225 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.51 12.1639044944 86% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.8 8.38706741573 93% => OK
difficult_words: 82.0 100.480337079 82% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 11.8971910112 97% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.2143820225 103% => 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.