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 pioneers of that past define the basis of a field. Their contributions might not be partial, but they provide the path for the future generation to walk on. I agree with the prompt that, influence from past achievements within a specific field is essentially significant for the future generation to produce necessary achievements. Following are two reasons and a concession to support this thesis.
Firstly, in today's world it is very difficult to predict the future trends with taking in account the past data set. The achievement made by the prior people working in the specific field, paves the way for the future generation to enhance it and, make this a world a better place. As progress is a continuous process, instead of a discrete one. A consistent enhancement to the traditional contribution, solves the everyday problem in a best way. For instance, Apple Inc. is considered to be the most innovative company in the history of technology, yet most of the groundbreaking products were created out of technologies invented earlier, many times by different firms. Like Graphical User Interface which was the central part in revolutionising the personal computers was actually pioneered by Xerox Corp. Consequently an indispensable path towards achieving progress it to access the past contributions and, using them to create something different and innovative.
Secondly, learning from past contributions in a specific field not only supports innovation but, also keeps a check on the progress, thereby eradicating any possibility of immorality and destruction. It is common for a technological development, which is very much in favour of humanity, to be used by some specific people or a group of people to full-fill their immoral deeds. For example, Nuclear energy was a breathtaking invention in the field on clean energy, it was sustainable and environment friendly. But, it didn't take much time for people to turn it into a weapon mass destruction, by using it to create nuclear bombs. Therefore, any new contribution to field should be done by keeping in mind the harmful and destructive traits of this world. And, learning from past contributions serves an important role in doing that, consequently eradicating the possibility of reverse-engineering.
Thirdly, some may argue that in some specific scenarios and conditions, using the traditional contributions for solving a current problem might be derivative and unoriginal. But, this assertion which argues the originality of a solution is less important than actually solving a specific problem in a certain field.
Conclusively, influence of past achievements is favourable in achieving the endeavours of current generations. As it helps in being progressive, as well as sustainable.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 436, Rule ID: THE_SUPERLATIVE[1]
Message: Use 'the' with the superlative.
Suggestion: the
...ibution, solves the everyday problem in a best way. For instance, Apple Inc. is c...
^
Line 5, column 519, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: didn't
...nable and environment friendly. But, it didnt take much time for people to turn it in...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, consequently, first, firstly, if, may, second, secondly, so, therefore, third, thirdly, well, for example, for instance, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.5258426966 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 12.4196629213 32% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 14.8657303371 87% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 11.3162921348 62% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 22.0 33.0505617978 67% => OK
Preposition: 67.0 58.6224719101 114% => OK
Nominalization: 19.0 12.9106741573 147% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2337.0 2235.4752809 105% => OK
No of words: 434.0 442.535393258 98% => OK
Chars per words: 5.38479262673 5.05705443957 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.56428161445 4.55969084622 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.31261488233 2.79657885939 118% => OK
Unique words: 232.0 215.323595506 108% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.534562211982 0.4932671777 108% => OK
syllable_count: 729.0 704.065955056 104% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 6.24550561798 96% => OK
Article: 3.0 4.99550561798 60% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 3.10617977528 97% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.77640449438 113% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.38483146067 114% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 20.2370786517 109% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 23.0359550562 82% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 47.8092153709 60.3974514979 79% => OK
Chars per sentence: 106.227272727 118.986275619 89% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.7272727273 23.4991977007 84% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.90909090909 5.21951772744 132% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 10.2758426966 127% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 5.13820224719 97% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.83258426966 83% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.217893492304 0.243740707755 89% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0614430058758 0.0831039109588 74% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0544905688657 0.0758088955206 72% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.130162366859 0.150359130593 87% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0384034035734 0.0667264976115 58% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.8 14.1392134831 98% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 43.73 48.8420337079 90% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.1743820225 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.92 12.1639044944 114% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.05 8.38706741573 108% => OK
difficult_words: 123.0 100.480337079 122% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 11.8971910112 76% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.2143820225 86% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.7820224719 119% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.