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.
According to the statement above, whatever the endeavour beginners are more likely to make an important contribution than experts. In what follows, I shall reject this position by considering different fields, from those that are more technical (philosophy, maths, science) to those that are less (history, literature).
The author’s thesis is clearly false when the field at issue needs to have a technical background, such as science, maths, philosophy. First, consider science. What is it required to make a great contribution? At least, deep knowledge of maths, preceding theories and the functioning of the scientific method – all things that are obscure to the beginner. Is it possible for a novice to give a great contribution to maths? Of course, there is no reason to exclude that case in principle; however, in history of maths, it was very rare that a student who only knew elementary maths (addition, subtraction, multiplication, division) offered a significant mathematical theory. The same is also true for philosophy. In order to develop an interesting philosophical view, one should know what philosophers have already said and completely acquire the relevant philosophical concepts.
Some people may object that the author’s view is convincing when it comes to less technical subjects, such as literature or history. Before exploring this objection, it is necessary to emphasize that it cannot save the author’s position, which is a statement about all endeavours. In other words, one cannot hope to defend the author’s view by identifying some field in which it may be true, because the author’s thesis is about all endeavours and we have already known that it is false for technical subjects. Anyway, what about history? It is possible that a person who has recently started studying history makes a great discovery: perhaps, while he is walking around the centre of Rome finds out a particular artefact. However, this is rare: archaeologists, for example, should know what place is more likely to host important discoveries and, in order to know that, it is necessary a lot of experience. Some people can, however, point out the case of literature: writing a great novel does not require being an expert of some sort. However, this is not true: almost every great writers in history did a lot of work before making an inestimable work of art: usually, writers and poets were journalists and avid readers.
The only example that one could put forward to enhance the author’s position is talented people. Mozart, for example, had made a great contribution to music by writing beautiful songs since he was very young. However, it is also true that genius can be considered as experts who haven’t followed the path toward becoming experts: they are experts from birth.
In conclusion, the author’s position is not convincing at all. Maths, science, philosophy, history, literature requires long training before making important discoveries. It is vain to hope giving an important contribution without making fatigue, unless, of course, you are a genius.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 581, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'maths'' or 'math's'?
Suggestion: maths'; math's
...that a student who only knew elementary maths addition, subtraction, multiplication, ...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, anyway, but, first, however, if, may, so, while, at least, for example, in conclusion, of course, such as, in other words
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 32.0 19.5258426966 164% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.4196629213 81% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 14.8657303371 47% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 19.0 11.3162921348 168% => OK
Pronoun: 36.0 33.0505617978 109% => OK
Preposition: 60.0 58.6224719101 102% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 12.9106741573 139% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2624.0 2235.4752809 117% => OK
No of words: 494.0 442.535393258 112% => OK
Chars per words: 5.31174089069 5.05705443957 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.71445763274 4.55969084622 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.05332147833 2.79657885939 109% => OK
Unique words: 257.0 215.323595506 119% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.52024291498 0.4932671777 105% => OK
syllable_count: 824.4 704.065955056 117% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 6.24550561798 160% => OK
Article: 4.0 4.99550561798 80% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 3.10617977528 97% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 12.0 4.38483146067 274% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 20.2370786517 119% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 23.0359550562 87% => OK
Sentence length SD: 60.3677963266 60.3974514979 100% => OK
Chars per sentence: 109.333333333 118.986275619 92% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.5833333333 23.4991977007 88% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.29166666667 5.21951772744 101% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 17.0 10.2758426966 165% => 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: 0.135948107387 0.243740707755 56% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0380837507866 0.0831039109588 46% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0421860654213 0.0758088955206 56% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0860089135414 0.150359130593 57% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0404272197799 0.0667264976115 61% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.9 14.1392134831 98% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 42.72 48.8420337079 87% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.1743820225 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.52 12.1639044944 111% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.24 8.38706741573 98% => OK
difficult_words: 113.0 100.480337079 112% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 11.8971910112 71% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.2143820225 89% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 79.17 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.75 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.