Claim: Any piece of information referred to as a fact should be mistrusted, since it may well be proven false in the future.
Reason: Much of the information that people assume is factual actually turns out to be inaccurate.
Facts that are proclaimed by authorities, media outlets, science experts and organizations have been greatly influential to the way we perceive the world, the way think and the way we choose to act. However, few have examined fact itself throughout the history and history itself is precisely a path of constructing what is given to be true and the same “truth” being totally dismantled at a later age.
One world-famous example of the aforementioned phenomenon is the life and legacy of Galileo Galilei and Copernicus, who were persecuted and being sentenced to prison for life for their once avant-garde theory that the Earth evolves around the Sun, thus Earth is not the center of the universe by the Roman catholic church and also by the science establishment at their time. One of their successors, Giordano Bruno, was held at contempt and tried for denial of catholic doctrines including divinity of Christ and eternal damnation, subsequently, was proven to be guilty and burned to death in Rome for simply upholding the cosmological theory that was developed by Galilei and Copernicus. By then virtually no one thought that the Earth, where Jesus walks, not to be the center of all existence and only a slight few questioned this supreme doctrine that was proclaimed by Aristotle in the ancient Greek time. Until hundreds of years later with enormous technological and scientifically advances did people first start to realize that the Earth has never been the center of the Universe and Aristotle could very well be wrong. It was precisely at that moment that the people realized all other facts promulgated by their ancestors can also be nothing more than false and so came the idea that facts itself can evolve over with time and that means, to constantly examine the world and the reality that we live in.
It wasn’t until another hundreds of years later that science mavericks realized that even though the all-mighty, omnipresent sun is not the center of all existence, it is, however, not even the center of our home galaxy, which contains of hundreds of billions of galaxies all coexisting in the same local cluster. All of this wouldn’t have happened, again, without great leaps forward made by science giants in our naïve and miniscule version of existence on Earth, leaps made with gadgets like telescopes and theories in physics, math and astronomy. Now one might ponder, is Aristotle wrong? Have his successors Copernicus and Galilei, Bruno, or even Newton or Einstein, Hubble or Hawking dedicated their lives for nothing but a set of “false” facts? Are the billions worshipping them worshipping “false” facts? My best answer is, yes and no, surely, they would be “wrong”, maybe in hundreds of years later, yet as a philosopher said, the only thing that will not change is the change itself, meaning that there are no static facts in the universe and all things change in one way or another. The Pursuit of knowledge and facts are the captivating essence of human endeavor and it is curiosity that drives the human race into a dreamy and glorious future, therefore they are wrong, yet they are right, for every perceived fact in history documents a step forward in this everlasting journey of knowledge.
In summation, I find the argument and its supporting text to be accurate and facts should be viewed as a statement of dichotomy, being true in one era and potentially proven wrong as time progresses. Stating one thing to be absolutely true is a betrayal to history and denial of the everlasting nature of the pursuit in science and technology, therefore a precocious mind should always face facts with an inner presence of skepticism since the prevailing theory or fact is and always will be a guidepost in this grand and evolving human endeavor.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, may, so, then, therefore, thus, well
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 39.0 19.5258426966 200% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.4196629213 72% => OK
Conjunction : 42.0 14.8657303371 283% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 19.0 11.3162921348 168% => OK
Pronoun: 46.0 33.0505617978 139% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 80.0 58.6224719101 136% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 12.9106741573 116% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3195.0 2235.4752809 143% => OK
No of words: 635.0 442.535393258 143% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.03149606299 5.05705443957 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 5.01988110783 4.55969084622 110% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.8911601681 2.79657885939 103% => OK
Unique words: 315.0 215.323595506 146% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.496062992126 0.4932671777 101% => OK
syllable_count: 998.1 704.065955056 142% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 6.24550561798 96% => OK
Article: 3.0 4.99550561798 60% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 3.10617977528 32% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.77640449438 169% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.38483146067 114% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 20.2370786517 79% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 39.0 23.0359550562 169% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 89.7667115361 60.3974514979 149% => OK
Chars per sentence: 199.6875 118.986275619 168% => OK
Words per sentence: 39.6875 23.4991977007 169% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.1875 5.21951772744 80% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 7.80617977528 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 10.2758426966 88% => 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: 0.178002866488 0.243740707755 73% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0656725743544 0.0831039109588 79% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0603492033611 0.0758088955206 80% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.128184900426 0.150359130593 85% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0680674513644 0.0667264976115 102% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 22.1 14.1392134831 156% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 31.89 48.8420337079 65% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 18.5 12.1743820225 152% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.49 12.1639044944 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.52 8.38706741573 114% => OK
difficult_words: 159.0 100.480337079 158% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 20.0 11.8971910112 168% => OK
gunning_fog: 17.6 11.2143820225 157% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => 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.