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 endeveour inchoate people are more likely to make important contribution than experts. In what follows, I shall rejects 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, preceeding theories and the functioning of the scientific method – all things that are obscure to the beginner. Is it possible for a novice to make a great contribution in maths? Of course, there is not reason to exclude that case in principle; however, in history of math it was very rare that a student who only knew elementary maths (addition, subtraction, multiplication, division) offered a significant mathematichal 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, he is walking on one of the Rome’s street and finds a particular artifact. However, this is rare: archeologist, 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 however can point 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 unestimable 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 in 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 being experts: they are experts from birth.
In conclusion, the author’s position is not convincing at all. Maths, science, philosophy, history, literature requires a long training before making important discoveries. It is vain to hope giving an important contribution without making fatigue, unless, of course, you are a geniuous.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 580, 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, 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 : 33.0 19.6327345309 168% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.9520958084 77% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 19.0 13.6137724551 140% => OK
Pronoun: 36.0 28.8173652695 125% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 58.0 55.5748502994 104% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 16.3942115768 110% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2620.0 2260.96107784 116% => OK
No of words: 494.0 441.139720559 112% => OK
Chars per words: 5.3036437247 5.12650576532 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.71445763274 4.56307096286 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.06529873252 2.78398813304 110% => OK
Unique words: 251.0 204.123752495 123% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.508097165992 0.468620217663 108% => OK
syllable_count: 822.6 705.55239521 117% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 4.96107784431 181% => OK
Article: 4.0 8.76447105788 46% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 11.0 4.22255489022 261% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 19.7664670659 121% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 60.3026510381 57.8364921388 104% => OK
Chars per sentence: 109.166666667 119.503703932 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.5833333333 23.324526521 88% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.0 5.70786347227 88% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 18.0 8.20758483034 219% => Less positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 6.88822355289 44% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.67664670659 64% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.134265128119 0.218282227539 62% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0383618297221 0.0743258471296 52% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0384894645563 0.0701772020484 55% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0839655182638 0.128457276422 65% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0349504102115 0.0628817314937 56% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.8 14.3799401198 96% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 42.72 48.3550499002 88% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.197005988 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.46 12.5979740519 107% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.27 8.32208582834 99% => OK
difficult_words: 114.0 98.500998004 116% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 12.3882235529 69% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.