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.
In any field of inquiry, the beginner is more likely to make an important contribution than the expert. I understand the point being made by the author of this statement, although the author fails to consider that in order to make an important contribution, a person needs to back it up with a plausible explanation. Beginner's luck runs out eventually and it is the expert who survives against oblivion. As a result, I disagree with the statement discussed in the previous lines and I offer a brief explanation about my position in the paragraphs below.
In a field of inquiry such as science, it is often perceived that beginners try to fiddle with domains that have not been touched before, owing to which they discover something important which ultimately changes the world. I agree that such instances have taken place, but the count of such discoveries are minuscule when compared to discoveries that were reasoned out by the scientists. Science is a paradigm that has critics eagerly waiting to mar a discovery that is unconventional or never been thought of. In situations like these, an expert can provide empirical evidence to support the discovery the he or she has made. Beginners would dwindle under such scrutiny and even though they have made a significant contribution to science, the sheer weight of scientific scrutiny demoralizes them. An expert can show panache and overcome the scrutiny, and be honored for a significant find.
Similarly, the field of politics is a domain of inquiry wherein the politicians are scrutinized by the media, citizens of the country and opposing parties. A beginner cannot make a significant contribution unless he or she studies the democratic data of the country. Politicians are asked numerous questions regarding religion, political views and personal affairs. A beginner without having the knowledge to speak logically might cost his party, a chance to become the ruling party. The ability to criticize enemys and gather support from the masses requires years of rigor. An expert politician will always say things that he expects the masses will love to listen and answer questions in a way that pleases his supporters. If a beginner is put in front of the nation, more often than not, it is bound do be a diabolical affair for the party he represents. Therefore, politics is a domain wherein a beginner cannot make as significant a contribution, as the experts.
Proponents of the above claim would contend that even though minuscule, discoveries by beginners hold significance in the area of inquiry they are employed in. I agree that accidental discoveries by beginners have been pivotal, although these discoveries need to be justified. This is where the experts provide their key contributions. Experts can study the discovery and shield it from the criticism of the world. Without the blanket of empirical evidence, any important contribution, even by an expert will never achieve a status of credibility in the contemporary world. Hence, an expert holds a more crucial role when it comes making important contributions than the beginners.
In sum, I strongly oppose the statement that in any field of inquiry, the beginner is more likely to make an important contribution than the expert. The generalization made by this statement is too extreme and on the contrary, it is the experts, who as a virtue of their reasoning make significant contributions.
be
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 604, Rule ID: DT_PRP[1]
Message: Possible typo. Did you mean 'the' or 'he'?
Suggestion: the; he
...rical evidence to support the discovery the he or she has made. Beginners would dwindl...
^^^^^^
Line 10, column 1, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Be
...soning make significant contributions. be
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, hence, if, regarding, similarly, so, therefore, such as, as a result, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 25.0 19.5258426966 128% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.4196629213 97% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 14.8657303371 101% => OK
Relative clauses : 19.0 11.3162921348 168% => OK
Pronoun: 45.0 33.0505617978 136% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 73.0 58.6224719101 125% => OK
Nominalization: 21.0 12.9106741573 163% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2870.0 2235.4752809 128% => OK
No of words: 561.0 442.535393258 127% => OK
Chars per words: 5.11586452763 5.05705443957 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.86676880123 4.55969084622 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.99526137599 2.79657885939 107% => OK
Unique words: 267.0 215.323595506 124% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.475935828877 0.4932671777 96% => OK
syllable_count: 916.2 704.065955056 130% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 6.24550561798 144% => OK
Article: 14.0 4.99550561798 280% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 5.0 3.10617977528 161% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.77640449438 113% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.38483146067 137% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 26.0 20.2370786517 128% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 23.0359550562 91% => OK
Sentence length SD: 38.7195958216 60.3974514979 64% => OK
Chars per sentence: 110.384615385 118.986275619 93% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.5769230769 23.4991977007 92% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.46153846154 5.21951772744 66% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => 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: 2.0 4.83258426966 41% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.264670698367 0.243740707755 109% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0751929177859 0.0831039109588 90% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0803890077136 0.0758088955206 106% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.170827240932 0.150359130593 114% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.063529275116 0.0667264976115 95% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.5 14.1392134831 95% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 48.8420337079 103% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.1743820225 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.42 12.1639044944 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.45 8.38706741573 101% => OK
difficult_words: 134.0 100.480337079 133% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 11.8971910112 92% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.2143820225 93% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => 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.