In any field of inquiry, the beginner is more likely than the expert to make important contributions.
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.
I do not agree with the statement for its overarching claim. Yes, there are instances where beginners “strike gold” and make significant contributions. However these are limited and can almost always be explained by chance or circumstances. In general, the experts of any field have the resources and required know how to make significant contributions. However, whether they choose to innovate or remain complacent with their past achievements is a different discussion - and one that we will conclude with.
But to begin with, there is some truth to the statement. We all have heard of that wonderkid who singlehandedly disrupted an entire industry overnight. But it’s rare. Often, these successes or contributtions can be explained by a radically new idea which garners more support. There were other social networking platforms before Facebook, like there were other search engines before Google. However both of those “beginners” came up with radically new ideas or approaches - and that is what led to their success and breakthroughs in the fields of networking and search respectively.
In other ocassions, it is just a matter of striking at the opportune moment. Netflix, the popular video streaming srvice was a beginner at online streaming. Other endavours before had tried and failed because they had misjudged the consumer’s preparedness for online streaming. However, Netflix struck at the right moment - exactly when the US audiences were getting comfortable with watching content online and when the appropriate digital infrastructure was in place.
Often, what might appear to be a beginner in a certain field, would have some prior experience or success in a related one. Apple was known for making computers and not digital music players. Hence it was “beginner” when it entered with the iPod. But Apple could use it’s years of experience and success in digital hardware and electronics and so it wasn’t really a “beginner”.
The examples above are limited to the realm of business. In other fields like STEM, the landscape is entirely different. In science and engineering, the words “significant” and “contributions” have a whole different meaning. A result is only considered to be a contribution after it has been vetted through a strict peer-review process which demands rigourous experimentation and testing. The contribution’s “significance” is evaluated by it’s impact on the field. It makes sense why high school students often don’t arrive at significant breakthroughs or contribtions - because the bar is very high. Also, it follows that experts in the field, who have access to resources for conducting experiments and the time to solve the most important problems in field, are in a better position to make important contributions. That is not to say that beginners cannot try to make contributions - their work will be subjected to the same level of scrutiny. They would have to attain a certain level of scholastic excellence in the field in order to defend the results. They would have to be well versed with the field to be able to prove novelty. And they will have to arrange for funds for conducting tests. In effect, this “beginner” would have to become an “expert”.
But does being an expert simply guarantee endless contributions? No, it doesn’t. While experts are in the right place, they also need that “stay hungry, stay foolish” attitude of a beginner. They need to avoid being complacent and consistently work towards advancing the field to be able to make significant contributions.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 163, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: However,
...os; and make significant contributions. However these are limited and can almost always...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 397, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: However,
...ere other search engines before Google. However both of those 'beginners' cam...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 562, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ccess and breakthroughs in the fields of networking and search respectively. I...
^^
Line 5, column 373, Rule ID: COMFORTABLE_WITH_VBG[1]
Message: Use simply 'comfortable watching'.
Suggestion: comfortable watching
...ctly when the US audiences were getting comfortable with watching content online and when the appropriate...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 193, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Hence,
...omputers and not digital music players. Hence it was 'beginner' when it ent...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 385, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'an' instead of 'a' if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g. 'an article', 'an hour'
Suggestion: an
...lectronics and so it wasn't really a 'beginner'. The examples a...
^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, hence, however, if, really, so, well, while, in general, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 32.0 19.5258426966 164% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.4196629213 113% => OK
Conjunction : 29.0 14.8657303371 195% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 11.3162921348 133% => OK
Pronoun: 37.0 33.0505617978 112% => OK
Preposition: 76.0 58.6224719101 130% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 12.9106741573 77% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3115.0 2235.4752809 139% => OK
No of words: 566.0 442.535393258 128% => OK
Chars per words: 5.5035335689 5.05705443957 109% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.87757670434 4.55969084622 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.65279409859 2.79657885939 131% => OK
Unique words: 301.0 215.323595506 140% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.531802120141 0.4932671777 108% => OK
syllable_count: 958.5 704.065955056 136% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 13.0 6.24550561798 208% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 7.0 4.99550561798 140% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 7.0 1.77640449438 394% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 6.0 4.38483146067 137% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 35.0 20.2370786517 173% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 23.0359550562 69% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 46.0853688766 60.3974514979 76% => OK
Chars per sentence: 89.0 118.986275619 75% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.1714285714 23.4991977007 69% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.31428571429 5.21951772744 44% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 6.0 4.97078651685 121% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 7.80617977528 77% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 19.0 10.2758426966 185% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 5.13820224719 97% => 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: 0.147446673389 0.243740707755 60% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.044568736267 0.0831039109588 54% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0411217504306 0.0758088955206 54% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0888294299854 0.150359130593 59% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0501347714139 0.0667264976115 75% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.6 14.1392134831 89% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 46.78 48.8420337079 96% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.1743820225 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.32 12.1639044944 118% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.48 8.38706741573 101% => OK
difficult_words: 145.0 100.480337079 144% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.0 11.8971910112 59% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 8.4 11.2143820225 75% => 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.