In any field of endeavor, it is impossible to make a significant contribution without first being strongly influenced by past achievements withing that field.
Statement contends that in any field of endeavor, a person can contribute significantly if and only if he/she is under influence of past achievements within that field. However, past achievements within a field definitely help a person to contribute significantly. I cannot agree with the assertion that only a person who is inspired by past achievements can contribute to that field.
The chief reason why I disagree with the assertion made by the statement is that there are many people who admire achievements in the certain field, However, not all admirers are expert in that field to contribute in its development. For instance, there are many people who are influenced by achievements of ISRO (Indian Space and Research Organization) from launching satellites to Mars mission. But, very little number of them is expert in space and research field.
Secondly, there are many examples which contradict the contention made by statement. Today, there are almost all the field explored by researchers and experts. But in past, when researchers and expert started their work, there were no past achievements for them. For Example, when Sir Isaac Newton found existence of Gravity, there was no past work of other scientists for him to be inspired by.
Another reason why I cannot agree with the contention that only past achievement can inspire a person to contribute effectively in respective field. Though past achievement provides reference and motivation to the researchers, there are certain instances in which researchers have been motivated by past failures in that field. Because, it is the nature of scientists and researchers to solve problems which others were failed to solve in past.
Conclusively, according to me, it would be partially true to say that in any field of endeavor, it is impossible to make a significant contribution without first being strongly influenced by past achievements within that field. Yet, I believe that to contribute significantly to any field, a person required some kind of inspiration whether from past achievement or past failure within that field.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 119, Rule ID: THERE_RE_MANY[3]
Message: Possible agreement error. Did you mean 'fields'?
Suggestion: fields
...tement. Today, there are almost all the field explored by researchers and experts. Bu...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 166, Rule ID: IN_PAST[1]
Message: Did you mean: 'in the past'?
Suggestion: in the past
...xplored by researchers and experts. But in past, when researchers and expert started th...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 234, Rule ID: NOW[2]
Message: Did you mean 'now' (=at this moment) instead of 'no' (negation)?
Suggestion: now
...d expert started their work, there were no past achievements for them. For Example...
^^
Line 7, column 438, Rule ID: IN_PAST[1]
Message: Did you mean: 'in the past'?
Suggestion: in the past
...blems which others were failed to solve in past. Conclusively, according to me, it ...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, if, second, secondly, so, for example, for instance, kind of
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.5258426966 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 12.4196629213 48% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 14.8657303371 61% => OK
Relative clauses : 20.0 11.3162921348 177% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 33.0505617978 82% => OK
Preposition: 66.0 58.6224719101 113% => OK
Nominalization: 19.0 12.9106741573 147% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1776.0 2235.4752809 79% => OK
No of words: 335.0 442.535393258 76% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.30149253731 5.05705443957 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.27820116611 4.55969084622 94% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.03752428767 2.79657885939 109% => OK
Unique words: 155.0 215.323595506 72% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.462686567164 0.4932671777 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 551.7 704.065955056 78% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 6.24550561798 80% => OK
Article: 3.0 4.99550561798 60% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 3.10617977528 97% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.38483146067 46% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 20.2370786517 74% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 22.0 23.0359550562 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 49.4309844351 60.3974514979 82% => OK
Chars per sentence: 118.4 118.986275619 100% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.3333333333 23.4991977007 95% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.4 5.21951772744 103% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 7.80617977528 51% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 10.2758426966 78% => 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: 0.536847890076 0.243740707755 220% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.194290755858 0.0831039109588 234% => Sentence topic similarity is high.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.173085319572 0.0758088955206 228% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.320070493974 0.150359130593 213% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.198908091854 0.0667264976115 298% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.7 14.1392134831 104% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 48.8420337079 101% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.1743820225 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.76 12.1639044944 113% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.03 8.38706741573 96% => OK
difficult_words: 70.0 100.480337079 70% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 11.8971910112 122% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.2143820225 96% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.7820224719 127% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.