In any field of endeavour, it is impossible to make a significant contribution without first being strongly influenced by past achievements within that field.
The significance of having a fore knowledge of any entity which a person tries to endeavor is immeasurable. A superfluous amount of fore-knowledge puts the person into the driving seat of a successful endeavor. Although in some exceptional cases, it may not be necessary to have a strong influence of the past achievements.
Behind many major scientific discoveries, there is a hand of the scientists' knowledge of the fundamentals of that topic. Fundamentals are an essential part of any phenomenon. A competent scientist is obligated to have the fundamental knowledge about any concept. Like the age-old aphorism "Rome wasn't built in a day.", the modern technology we observe around us was not built with the snap of a finger. First, the invention of transistors took place. Which lead to the synthesis of various logic gates, which further became the crux of the digital circuitries. By combining such appropriate multiple circuits, Charles Babbage finally invented the 'Computer'. Hence, without the prior knowledge of the miniscule transistor, the existence of the invention of the decade would not have been there.
Furthermore, one can look back at the mistakes done by their predecessors and improve upon that. A fine example of that is the evolution of the atomic model representation. According to Sir J.J. Thompson, the atom which is the smallest part of any matter consists of protons and electrons and it looks like a plum pudding. After the rejection of this model due to its scientific flaws, Ernest Rutherford brought forward an improved model which was further ameliorated by Neils Bohr and then Schrodinger and finally Sommerfeld. Today, the actual representation of an atom would not have been possible if the concepts of proton and electron were not understood or ignored by the scientists. Which would lead to lack of knowledge of the atom and it would have been arduous to understand its various properties.
In some cases, it was not necessary for people to accept the prior concepts and work upon them. Nicolas Copernicus, the man who proposed the Heliocentric theory of the solar system which suggests that the Sun resides in the center of the solar system. This theory was announced as false back in the day and a Geocentric theory prevailed. After a few years, Copernicus' theory was proven to be true. Similarly, Max Plank went out of his way to synthesize a new string of theories completely distinct from then-prevailing classical Newtonian theories. He was successful in giving to the world his theories of Quantum Mechanics. These individuals are the quintessential of not necessarily accepting the dogma and going out of one's way to put forth something unknown to the world. Both these discoveries were revolutionary in their respective fields.
At the end, it is quite advantageous to have knowledge about the past achievements. It helps with carrying on by accepting a set of statements as 'laws'. But in some cases, an individual's brilliance and vision foreshadows these laws and bring about a revolutionary change in the society. In no way I am trying to undermine those who are influenced by the works of the past. What I am trying to conclude is that the word 'impossible' in the statement makes it a bit radical because as the evidence suggests, it is not at all impossible to make a significant contribution without being influenced by the entities of the past.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 64, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'scientists'' or 'scientist's'?
Suggestion: scientists'; scientist's
...tific discovery, there is a hand of the scientists knowledge of the fundamentals of that t...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 299, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: wasn't
...t. Like the age old aphorism 'Rome wasnt built in a day.', the modern techn...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 371, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: wasn't
... modern technology we observe around us wasnt built with the snap of a finger. First,...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 723, Rule ID: ONES[1]
Message: Did you mean 'one's'?
Suggestion: one's
...ly accepting the dogma and going out of ones way to put forth something unknown to t...
^^^^
Line 9, column 195, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'individuals'' or 'individual's'?
Suggestion: individuals'; individual's
...atements as laws. But in some cases, an individuals brilliance and vision foreshadows these...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 478, Rule ID: LITTLE_BIT[1]
Message: Reduce redundancy by using 'little' or 'bit'.
Suggestion: little; bit
... impossible in the statement makes it a little bit radical because as the evidence suggest...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, furthermore, hence, if, look, may, similarly, so, then, in some cases
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 26.0 19.5258426966 133% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 12.4196629213 56% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 14.8657303371 94% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 11.3162921348 133% => OK
Pronoun: 33.0 33.0505617978 100% => OK
Preposition: 97.0 58.6224719101 165% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 12.9106741573 101% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2894.0 2235.4752809 129% => OK
No of words: 572.0 442.535393258 129% => OK
Chars per words: 5.05944055944 5.05705443957 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.89045207381 4.55969084622 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.07580041502 2.79657885939 110% => OK
Unique words: 301.0 215.323595506 140% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.526223776224 0.4932671777 107% => OK
syllable_count: 901.8 704.065955056 128% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 6.24550561798 128% => OK
Article: 11.0 4.99550561798 220% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 3.0 3.10617977528 97% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 10.0 4.38483146067 228% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 30.0 20.2370786517 148% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 23.0359550562 82% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 44.226688775 60.3974514979 73% => OK
Chars per sentence: 96.4666666667 118.986275619 81% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.0666666667 23.4991977007 81% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.0 5.21951772744 57% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 7.80617977528 77% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 18.0 10.2758426966 175% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 5.13820224719 97% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.83258426966 145% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.137780997392 0.243740707755 57% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0324959723804 0.0831039109588 39% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0598674193787 0.0758088955206 79% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0823019366711 0.150359130593 55% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0766724056616 0.0667264976115 115% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.9 14.1392134831 84% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 48.8420337079 107% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.1743820225 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.07 12.1639044944 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.64 8.38706741573 103% => OK
difficult_words: 147.0 100.480337079 146% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 11.8971910112 67% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.2143820225 86% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => 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.