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 statement adduces that past achievements strongly influence substancial contributions, regardless the field of endeavor. This assumption sounds plausible once previous experiences can provide inputs to future studies, which can benefit from they by discarding irrelevant ideas or by reinforcing germane ones. Yet, there may be situations in which this influence may not be so advantageous to the work being developed.
Refinement and perfection are two features that come with hours of devotion over some work. Few discoveries are made abruptly, without striving or scrutinizing the matter being studied; and even those that are so, they generally need to be worked out in order to become significant and robust. Past accomplishments can thereby play an important role as they can wane some not strong affairs. It is said that excellence is achieved through mistakes. So, by not repeating the errors commited in past experiences, scholars can focus on cases that are more consistent to the subject being studied.
Furthermore, those past findings can not only expose mistakes, but also they can provide the basis to future studies. People can then propose new ideas upon those previous contributions instead of trying to reinvent an already consolidated discovery. Automobilistic factories can devote their attention to the aerodynamic or potency of a car, instead of discussing the shape of the wheel, for example. This ancient achievement has already proven itself to be efficient the way it is.
Conversely, taking a past achievement for granted can have an adverse effect too. It can circumscribe creativity. People may put themselves in a confortable zone and they may not feel the neecessity to revisit such previous works. In a sense, iconoclastic ideas can be precluded to come up if novel works are strongly influenced by past achievements. Perhaps, instead of defying the geocentrism theory, Nicolaus Copernicus would have devoted his life to develop new theories upon the belief that celestial bodies moved around the earth, if he had based his studies on previous affairs, for instance.
In conclusion, previous achievements can be of valuable importance in the development of important contributions. Not only because they can provide inputs to buttress plausible ideas, but also because they can abate spurious ones. However, sometimes they can be deleterious for the discovery of a breakthrough, as they can hamper the reexamination of previous findings.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 494, Rule ID: PAST_EXPERIENCE_MEMORY[1]
Message: Use simply 'experiences'.
Suggestion: experiences
...by not repeating the errors commited in past experiences, scholars can focus on cases that are m...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 262, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ous ones. However, sometimes they can be deleterious for the discovery of a break...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, conversely, furthermore, however, if, may, so, then, for example, for instance, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.5258426966 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 23.0 12.4196629213 185% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 14.8657303371 61% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 11.3162921348 71% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 30.0 33.0505617978 91% => OK
Preposition: 53.0 58.6224719101 90% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 12.9106741573 116% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2101.0 2235.4752809 94% => OK
No of words: 385.0 442.535393258 87% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.45714285714 5.05705443957 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.4296068528 4.55969084622 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.09817981482 2.79657885939 111% => OK
Unique words: 225.0 215.323595506 104% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.584415584416 0.4932671777 118% => OK
syllable_count: 651.6 704.065955056 93% => 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: 1.0 4.99550561798 20% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.77640449438 169% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.38483146067 160% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 20.2370786517 99% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 23.0359550562 82% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 47.9400406758 60.3974514979 79% => OK
Chars per sentence: 105.05 118.986275619 88% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.25 23.4991977007 82% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.2 5.21951772744 100% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 15.0 10.2758426966 146% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 5.13820224719 19% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.140938093192 0.243740707755 58% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0517212126361 0.0831039109588 62% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0610704210358 0.0758088955206 81% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0914722120645 0.150359130593 61% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0665398948241 0.0667264976115 100% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.9 14.1392134831 98% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 43.73 48.8420337079 90% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.1743820225 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.39 12.1639044944 118% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.71 8.38706741573 116% => OK
difficult_words: 125.0 100.480337079 124% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 11.8971910112 101% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.2143820225 86% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => 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.