In any field of inquiry, the beginner is more likely than the expert to make important contributions.
The speaker claims that beginners tend to make more major contributions than experts in a field of inquiry. I strongly agree with the speaker as I believe that beginners have an ability to bring fresh ideas and perspectives which can shine light on new ways to approach a particular problem. Though I understand that experts are equipped with a plethora of experience and have solved a variety of problems, they tend to get lost in their experience and are not able to generate new and efficient approaches. I support my stance with a few detailed reasons supported by relevant examples.
Firstly, experts working in the same field for a long period of time tend to get saturated by the current knowledge they possess. They also tend to get saturated by the existing methods they use to approach a particular problem. For example, a detective working in the field of criminal investigation might have always been confronted with similar transgression cases and is therefore used to investigating these cases by following the same set of assumptions. However, a new detective who is completely new to this field might therefore ask more basic questions that may even cast doubt upon the assumptions these experts have considered. This may lead to a novel lead in a crime case which might seem impossible to crack by other expert detectives working alongside him.
Furthermore, though the beginner is new to a particular field, he brings with him his share of personal experiences and knowledge which may sometimes shine new light on existing problems. Let us take the area of scientific research for example. A group of scientists are working on ways to improve a software's accuracy to identify the title and artist of a piece of music just by listening to it. On the other hand, a recent joinee to their team is a hobby musician and understands that all pieces of music have a certain structure and style to it that can be used to easily pre-categorize the music before identifying it, thereby reducing the search space from which to find the details of this piece. This might lead to an breakthrough development in the area of music recognition that could have never been thought of before if someone with this particular expertise had not stepped in.
In conclusion, it is possible that experts are more adept in performing strategic inquiry that is specific to the field of study. However, the innate advantage of a beginner is that he is not biased by the existing methods and questioning that is already present within the field. Hence, he can use his unique perspective and personal knowledge and experience to make important contributions to the inquiry. This also means that experts should try to think like a beginner in their own fields by questionin existing approaches and going back to the basic principles and assumptions.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 55, Rule ID: PERIOD_OF_TIME[1]
Message: Use simply 'period'.
Suggestion: period
...ts working in the same field for a long period of time tend to get saturated by the current kn...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 192, Rule ID: USE_TO_VERB[1]
Message: Did you mean 'used'?
Suggestion: used
... saturated by the existing methods they use to approach a particular problem. For e...
^^^
Line 9, column 301, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'softwares'' or 'software's'?
Suggestion: softwares'; software's
...ntists are working on ways to improve a softwares accuracy to identify the title and arti...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 723, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'a' instead of 'an' if the following word doesn't start with a vowel sound, e.g. 'a sentence', 'a university'
Suggestion: a
...tails of this piece. This might lead to an breakthrough development in the area of...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, furthermore, hence, however, if, may, so, therefore, for example, in conclusion, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 19.5258426966 82% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.4196629213 97% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 14.8657303371 94% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 11.3162921348 150% => OK
Pronoun: 44.0 33.0505617978 133% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 78.0 58.6224719101 133% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 12.9106741573 46% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2376.0 2235.4752809 106% => OK
No of words: 479.0 442.535393258 108% => OK
Chars per words: 4.96033402923 5.05705443957 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.67825486995 4.55969084622 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.86241926807 2.79657885939 102% => OK
Unique words: 233.0 215.323595506 108% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.48643006263 0.4932671777 99% => OK
syllable_count: 749.7 704.065955056 106% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 6.24550561798 160% => OK
Article: 6.0 4.99550561798 120% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.38483146067 46% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 20.2370786517 89% => OK
Sentence length: 26.0 23.0359550562 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 57.4410056998 60.3974514979 95% => OK
Chars per sentence: 132.0 118.986275619 111% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.6111111111 23.4991977007 113% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.94444444444 5.21951772744 133% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 7.80617977528 51% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 10.2758426966 68% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 5.13820224719 117% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.83258426966 103% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.216296816305 0.243740707755 89% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0760544290192 0.0831039109588 92% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.103953563974 0.0758088955206 137% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.148799672603 0.150359130593 99% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0999838392729 0.0667264976115 150% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.2 14.1392134831 108% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 45.09 48.8420337079 92% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 12.1743820225 110% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.78 12.1639044944 97% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.39 8.38706741573 100% => OK
difficult_words: 105.0 100.480337079 104% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 11.8971910112 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 11.2143820225 111% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.7820224719 119% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Better to have 5/6 paragraphs with 3/4 arguments. And try always support/against one side but compare two sides, like this:
para 1: introduction
para 2: reason 1. address both of the views presented for reason 1
para 3: reason 2. address both of the views presented for reason 2
para 4: reason 3. address both of the views presented for reason 3
para 5: reason 4. address both of the views presented for reason 4 (optional)
para 6: conclusion.
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.