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.]
The speaker asserts that without first being strongly influenced by past achievements, it is impossible to make a significant contribution. Even though some emerging new problems is unprecedented, past achievement has a helpful influence on the realm of science, and the politics. With some reason to explain my view point; I agree with the speaker.
To begin with, past achievements have a positive effect on scientific area. Indeed, technology development is established by traditional results. Without traditional results, science cannot make progress. Semiconductor manufacturing is a good illustration. When Moore’s Law was predicted in the end, many manufacturing companies gave up to reduce the dimension of the chips. However, some pioneer companies amazingly extended Moore’s Law, because they were benefited from Prof. Chenming Hu, the FinFET inventor. Due to Chenming Hu’s contribution to semiconductors, Moore’s Law can be extended to next 20 years. In a word, technology improvement is benefited from past fruitful results.
Second, past achievements exercise an influence in political area. The precursor’s achievement getting from similar problem is good guide to the successor. As carrying out a new policy, the successor should refer precursor’s achievements because the successor is incapable of know whether the new policy is effective or not. For example, When Joe Biden, the United States’ president, make a plan to solve economic crisis, he can refer Obama’s achievements because Obama successfully addressed the global financial crisis In Obama’s presidency, which offers a good guide to Joe Biden. In sum, the precursor’s achievement could be a good guide to successor.
However, constantly emerging new problems should be taken into account. Since crisis is unpredictable, people should be creative to tackle new emerging problems. If people ignore the new crisis, it will cause a catastrophe. For instance, COVID-19, has constantly killed the people in the world due to people’s remising. Such a brutal virus was unprecedent that people was incapable of dealing with it in the beginning. Fortunately, scientists successfully fabricate vaccination. As a results, the casualty is decline in the world. In brief, many new problems have no precedent, so people should be creative to deal with it.
To sum up, although people should tackle unprecedented problems, past achievement can be a good guide to successor. With past achievement, successor can be more efficiency. So, I agree with what the speaker says.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 484, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[1]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'a result' or simply 'results'?
Suggestion: a result; results
... successfully fabricate vaccination. As a results, the casualty is decline in the world. ...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, if, second, so, for example, for instance, in brief, as a result, in my view, to begin with, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 19.5258426966 113% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.4196629213 97% => OK
Conjunction : 2.0 14.8657303371 13% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 5.0 11.3162921348 44% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 11.0 33.0505617978 33% => OK
Preposition: 57.0 58.6224719101 97% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 12.9106741573 124% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2182.0 2235.4752809 98% => OK
No of words: 387.0 442.535393258 87% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.63824289406 5.05705443957 111% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.43534841618 4.55969084622 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.27842116317 2.79657885939 117% => OK
Unique words: 209.0 215.323595506 97% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.540051679587 0.4932671777 109% => OK
syllable_count: 662.4 704.065955056 94% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 6.24550561798 80% => OK
Article: 7.0 4.99550561798 140% => OK
Subordination: 9.0 3.10617977528 290% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 13.0 4.38483146067 296% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 28.0 20.2370786517 138% => OK
Sentence length: 13.0 23.0359550562 56% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 45.9062237344 60.3974514979 76% => OK
Chars per sentence: 77.9285714286 118.986275619 65% => OK
Words per sentence: 13.8214285714 23.4991977007 59% => More words per sentence wanted.
Discourse Markers: 4.39285714286 5.21951772744 84% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 10.2758426966 127% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 5.13820224719 175% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.83258426966 124% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.17676176493 0.243740707755 73% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0484956529497 0.0831039109588 58% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0578989643828 0.0758088955206 76% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.112344933082 0.150359130593 75% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0687413539285 0.0667264976115 103% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.0 14.1392134831 85% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 49.82 48.8420337079 102% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 12.1743820225 78% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.84 12.1639044944 122% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.69 8.38706741573 104% => OK
difficult_words: 108.0 100.480337079 107% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.0 11.8971910112 59% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 7.2 11.2143820225 64% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.