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.
Experts are those who have a profound knowledge and a long-term experience in their relevant fields. The prompt states that in any field of inquiry, the beginner is more likely than the expert to make important contributions. I mostly disagree with the statement and argue that expert is more likely to make contributions than beginner in any field of inquiry. My stance is based on two reasons.
Firstly, experts have a deep knowledge and a vigorous experience in their fields. They can easily solve a problem and correlate the incidences at the time of inquiry from their previous experiences. A profound knowledge is very much helpful to find the real way of inquiry. For example, in continuous process plant, an engineer may face many problems at the time of operation. To shoot those troubles immediately is the main concern for an engineer. For troubleshooting the steps are to find the area where it is troubling, take necessary steps to make it correct without hindering the continuous operation, and to find the reason of the malfunction. In these every steps one need to have a deep knowledge about the process plant. Without the knowledge, an engineer will not able to find the reason, the location and the area of the trouble. For this reason for troubleshooting, there is always a knowledgeable person in the group to provide the exact direction. The example illustrates us that for proper inquiry and for necessary steps an expert is needed.
Experience is often helpful for personnel in inquiry. Experiences help a responsible one to find the reasons. For example, in field of detective, a detective need to find reason and the criminal for an occurrence. For detecting one, who has profound experience in the field, can easily find out the motive and the suspected one by correlating from his or her previous experiences. On the other hand, a neophyte is not habituated in this field, he or she may detect the reason and criminal, but it will be time consuming and in most of the cases, the perfect result may not be found. Therefore, inquiry in any field an expert can make greater contributions than a beginner.
However, sometimes, a callow fallow can make an extraordinary contribution in inquiry in a new field. An expert has a disadvantage that is he or she has tendency to use his or her experience in any case. However, for a new case, a novel idea is needed. In this case, a tyro can contribute because he or she is able to use his insight to find the solution without any influence from his or her experience. A new one is more likely to provide a new idea in any field, and these new ideas are very much conducive to look in the field of inquiry from other side. Therefore, for finding a new solution in any field an inexperienced and a beginner can make creditable contribution in some cases.
In conclusion, beginner may sometimes contribute in a field inquiry, but the occurrence is often a serendipity. Therefore, in any field of inquiry, expert is more likely than beginner to make important contributions.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 200, Rule ID: A_UNCOUNTABLE[4]
Message: Uncountable nouns are usually not used with an indefinite article. Use simply 'profound knowledge'.
Suggestion: Profound knowledge
...nquiry from their previous experiences. A profound knowledge is very much helpful to find the real w...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, firstly, however, look, may, so, therefore, for example, in conclusion, in any case, in some cases, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 19.5258426966 108% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.4196629213 113% => OK
Conjunction : 21.0 14.8657303371 141% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 11.3162921348 62% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 34.0 33.0505617978 103% => OK
Preposition: 68.0 58.6224719101 116% => OK
Nominalization: 19.0 12.9106741573 147% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2527.0 2235.4752809 113% => OK
No of words: 524.0 442.535393258 118% => OK
Chars per words: 4.82251908397 5.05705443957 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.7844588288 4.55969084622 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.95394881778 2.79657885939 106% => OK
Unique words: 204.0 215.323595506 95% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.389312977099 0.4932671777 79% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 828.0 704.065955056 118% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 6.24550561798 64% => OK
Article: 15.0 4.99550561798 300% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 0.0 3.10617977528 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 4.0 1.77640449438 225% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 9.0 4.38483146067 205% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 28.0 20.2370786517 138% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 23.0359550562 78% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 40.390362434 60.3974514979 67% => OK
Chars per sentence: 90.25 118.986275619 76% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.7142857143 23.4991977007 80% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.60714285714 5.21951772744 88% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 10.2758426966 127% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 5.13820224719 136% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.83258426966 166% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.24803470117 0.243740707755 102% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0824251568763 0.0831039109588 99% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0899525434994 0.0758088955206 119% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.179805669431 0.150359130593 120% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0725452463577 0.0667264976115 109% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.6 14.1392134831 75% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 48.8420337079 109% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.1743820225 85% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.68 12.1639044944 88% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.6 8.38706741573 91% => OK
difficult_words: 102.0 100.480337079 102% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 11.8971910112 67% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.2143820225 82% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.7820224719 93% => 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.