In any situation, progress requires discussion among people who have contrasting points of view.
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 situation, progress requires discussion among people who have contrasting points of view.
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.
Does progress require discussion among people who have contrasting points of view or not?
In this essay I consider few of the examples from the history of calculus and the struggle between deontology and utilitarianism to argue that
Despite the fact that one can arrive to conclusion much faster without discussing it with those opposing the view,
the benefits of such discussion outweigh this little inconvenience as it helps to make a more informed choice and avoid errors.
One may argue that to omit considering the opposing sides of argument will save time and hence lead to the faster progress.
For example, many people rejected and thought of Newton's calculus to be full of flaws and errors. However, in the end all of
those people became the proponents of calculus as they conceded that it was indeed correct and useful. We can infer from
this example that to consider the opposing side of the view only wasted time as in the end the conclusion was what the
Netwon put forward. However this case is an exception and we would not want to make general assumptions only based on one example.
It is unequivocal that when one does not consider both sides of the argument, he or she may be overlooking over a crucial
detail, which may have a significant impact on the conclusion if that detail were considered. Over the centuries people have
come to learn that when one does not consider both sides of the issue he or she has probably overlooked over a detail.
This experience is often applied in academic communities, where if in writing or in speech one omits the
contradicting points of view, his or her argument is considered weak and is therefore given little credit. Hence such work, no matter how novel, will
not propagate the field forward. However, there is more than ethos or credibility when considering the opposing views.
People give much credit to the works, which consider the opposing views as they are very likely to not have errors.
Philosophy is a subject which develops and progresses as people discuss their views. For example, deontology and utilitarianism
have throughout the centuries been divergent theories which aim at the same goal, to make people behave in a morally correct way.
Deontology aims at making rules which to follow, on the other hand in utilitarianism there is only one rule, greater good for greater numbers.
The conclusion has never been reached as these centuries have shown many many faults in both of the views. If not the discussion of these philosophies.
We might have adopted a way of thinking full of flaws.
By showing with the example of calculus that sometimes discussions can be futile, such discussions are still necessary as they give credibility
to the work, which may have significant effect on how people will receive it and whether it will help the field progress. The essay also considered the
case from the philosophy which shows that without considering both sides of the argument, we might adopt beliefs which are likely to be faulty. In the end,
it is clear that one should consider both sides of the issue to arrive at a right decision.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 116, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ition, you should consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold tr...
^^^
Line 15, column 121, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ed correct and useful. We can infer from this example that to consider the opposi...
^^^
Line 17, column 21, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: However,
...usion was what the Netwon put forward. However this case is an exception and we would ...
^^^^^^^
Line 19, column 122, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...or she may be overlooking over a crucial detail, which may have a significant imp...
^^^
Line 23, column 108, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Hence,
...k and is therefore given little credit. Hence such work, no matter how novel, will n...
^^^^^
Line 30, column 69, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: many
...n reached as these centuries have shown many many faults in both of the views. If not the...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 30, column 107, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “If” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
... many many faults in both of the views. If not the discussion of these philosophie...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, hence, however, if, look, may, so, still, therefore, for example, 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: 18.0 12.4196629213 145% => OK
Conjunction : 23.0 14.8657303371 155% => OK
Relative clauses : 28.0 11.3162921348 247% => Less relative clauses wanted (maybe 'which' is over used).
Pronoun: 50.0 33.0505617978 151% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 79.0 58.6224719101 135% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 12.9106741573 101% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3003.0 2235.4752809 134% => OK
No of words: 602.0 442.535393258 136% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.98837209302 5.05705443957 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.95335121839 4.55969084622 109% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.66347039944 2.79657885939 95% => OK
Unique words: 261.0 215.323595506 121% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.433554817276 0.4932671777 88% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 927.9 704.065955056 132% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59117977528 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 11.0 6.24550561798 176% => OK
Article: 4.0 4.99550561798 80% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 3.10617977528 32% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 11.0 4.38483146067 251% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 25.0 20.2370786517 124% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 23.0359550562 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 72.1376018454 60.3974514979 119% => OK
Chars per sentence: 120.12 118.986275619 101% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.08 23.4991977007 102% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.56 5.21951772744 68% => OK
Paragraphs: 29.0 4.97078651685 583% => Less paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 7.0 7.80617977528 90% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 10.2758426966 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 5.13820224719 195% => 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: 0.357525031973 0.243740707755 147% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.112186754766 0.0831039109588 135% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.161454808378 0.0758088955206 213% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.103953850507 0.150359130593 69% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.147351260911 0.0667264976115 221% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.1 14.1392134831 100% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 55.58 48.8420337079 114% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.1743820225 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.96 12.1639044944 98% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.84 8.38706741573 93% => OK
difficult_words: 115.0 100.480337079 114% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 11.8971910112 88% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.2143820225 103% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Maximum six paragraphs wanted.
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.