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.
While it is important to study and credit what has been achieved in a field of endeavor, it does not mean that without being strongly influenced by it, one can not make a significant contribution to the field. I can not abide by the all-or-nothing approach of the statement because I believe that the co-relation between influence from past achievements and novel contributions is highly situation dependent. I give three primary reasons to establish that none of the approaches is incorrect, and simply depends on the context.
Firstly, what does being influenced by the past achievements help us with? We can know the scope of the field and plan our course and targets accordingly. We can also learn from the mistakes that have already been made, so that we don't make the same mistakes again. And of course, we can use the past glories to keep ourselves motivated. Starting from the scratch and not paying heed to the history of the field might make it much difficult for someone to get to new discoveries in one lifetime. Also, a lot of the discoveries and major contributions in a field are simply improvements and adjustments to the previous results. That is something that a researcher might miss out on by not considering the past achievements.
However, by not being overly fixated with the past of a field, a researcher can bring in fresh perspectives and ideas to solve the existing problems in ways that have not been thought before. In this way, he will be able to breakout from the traditional path and will be able to innovate more freely by not being bound in potentially restricting conventions. This is a trend that is increasingly being seen in the inter-disciplinary scientific world of today. For example, a lot of the scientists, known for their contributions to Computer Science, are actually Mathematicians. A lot of ideas from Electrical Engineering have also crept into Computer Science and in turn, Computer Science has had ubiquitous effects on a lot of other fields such as Biology, Physiology etc. These innovations were only possible when someone brought in new trends and ideas.
Also, if we completely agree with the statement, it would mean that we would never be able to start any new endeavors. In order to start a new field, one has to have an independent thinking without being influenced by external factors. When Neil Armstrong and others first landed on the moon, they didn't have any past achievements in the field to take cues from. They were the first. Similarly, every single field in the world was started by true visionaries with completely novel ideas and even more importantly, unparalleled ambitions. Therefore, in such cases, the statement does not hold true. However, the statement will be relevant when it comes to motivating other people to join the field. I am sure that a lot of young kids would have aspired to become astronauts after seeing the first moon landing.
Therefore, from the above examples, it is clear that we can't simply agree or disagree with the statement as it not such a simple matter. It varies from place to place, time to time and person to person. One can be influenced by past achievements and try to further improve them, or one might bring in completely fresh ideas and build something novel. Both of them would have made humongous contributions to the field and it would be unfair to compare the two. Hence, we can conclude that none of the approaches is incorrect.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 232, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...that have already been made, so that we dont make the same mistakes again. And of co...
^^^^
Line 13, column 299, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: didn't
...d others first landed on the moon, they didnt have any past achievements in the field...
^^^^^
Line 17, column 57, Rule ID: CANT[1]
Message: Did you mean 'can't' or 'cannot'?
Suggestion: can't; cannot
...the above examples, it is clear that we cant simply agree or disagree with the state...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
accordingly, actually, also, but, first, firstly, hence, however, if, similarly, so, therefore, while, as to, for example, of course, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 28.0 19.5258426966 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 19.0 12.4196629213 153% => OK
Conjunction : 22.0 14.8657303371 148% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 11.3162921348 141% => OK
Pronoun: 47.0 33.0505617978 142% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 97.0 58.6224719101 165% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 12.9106741573 93% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2878.0 2235.4752809 129% => OK
No of words: 589.0 442.535393258 133% => OK
Chars per words: 4.88624787776 5.05705443957 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.92639038232 4.55969084622 108% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.89280489579 2.79657885939 103% => OK
Unique words: 279.0 215.323595506 130% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.473684210526 0.4932671777 96% => OK
syllable_count: 878.4 704.065955056 125% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59117977528 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 17.0 6.24550561798 272% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 6.0 4.99550561798 120% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 3.10617977528 129% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.77640449438 169% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.38483146067 114% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 29.0 20.2370786517 143% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 23.0359550562 87% => OK
Sentence length SD: 45.3202372028 60.3974514979 75% => OK
Chars per sentence: 99.2413793103 118.986275619 83% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.3103448276 23.4991977007 86% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.86206896552 5.21951772744 93% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 7.80617977528 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 10.2758426966 117% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 5.13820224719 117% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 11.0 4.83258426966 228% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.268324898934 0.243740707755 110% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0708424017463 0.0831039109588 85% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0624705997634 0.0758088955206 82% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.164798992781 0.150359130593 110% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.054151610045 0.0667264976115 81% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.8 14.1392134831 83% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 59.64 48.8420337079 122% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 12.1743820225 81% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.08 12.1639044944 91% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.63 8.38706741573 91% => OK
difficult_words: 112.0 100.480337079 111% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 11.8971910112 122% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.2143820225 89% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.7820224719 85% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.