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.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim and the reason on which that claim is based.
The author claims that there should be a doubtful perspective toward all fact since they will be verified as a mistake in the future. He also uses the reason of the majority of assumed accurate data converts to false information as the adherence for his claim. I fundamentally disagree with this claim and its reason. In what follows, I will delve into my concreted reasons to cast doubt on the accuracy of this claim and reason.
The initial fact that should be considered any released fact is subjected by the scientific activities. It is not a piece of data is presented by a shallow understanding person. It is a fact which considered by the scientist with his proliferate and deep understanding and knowledge over the issue. In addition, the fact shapes based on the long period of examination and observation. It is not fair to have a skeptical perspective toward all these efforts and knowledge. A lucid example of this fact is the periodic table of elements that took period close to one century to form. Many chemists worked on it. It did not appear overnight. Although during this duration, it faces the alteration and there is a possibility of change in the future for the sake of exploration of new elements, this shift will not alter the entire of system of the table.
The writer adduces the reason, more actual facts turned wrong over the period as the support for his claim, which is not of cogent one. It is feasible that during the scientific history lots of the assumed accurate facts are faced the failure; however, ignoring all facts as they are error will not be beneficial for the scientific development. It is obvious that the novel fact appears on the base of the previous fact. The shaping of a new issue also verifies whether the previous one is correct or not. On the other hand, with a skeptical attitude toward the facts, the formation of a new perspective toward the science will be halted and scholars will not be able to think out of the box. Consequently, there will not be the advancement of knowledge. An example that gives adherence to my reason is the fact of earth motion mentioned by the Galilei Galileo. This fact during its initial phase was ignored and denied by the society since it was against the religious belief. In contrast, the thriving of the knowledge leads to verification of this fact. Could you imagine what would happen if the scientists did not go further and stick to the idea of the earth without the rotation?!
Finally, since the facts are explored and examined by the scientists, who are a human being with the possibility of erring; there is a chance of making the mistake at making the scientific task. This mistake also in some field such as the medicine could lead to drastic outcomes such as people die. However, during the last decades for the sake of the technological enhancements, the ratio of error strikingly is decreased. According to the trustworthy statical information released by the Iran Medicine Journal in Iran the amount of erring in medical activities at the hospitals of Iran during the last ten years decreases over the sixty percent which is for the sake of precise technological supports that doctors gained.
To wrap it up, all the aforementioned information illustrates that the considering the all fact as the wrong is not a wise task. As each fact is shape based on the detailed and precisions observation by scholars, considering the facts as the mistake leads to the repetition in the initial step without the boosting in knowledge. Besides, technological development decreases the percentage of the error.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 37, Rule ID: ACTUAL_EXPERIENCE[1]
Message: Use simply 'facts'.
Suggestion: facts
...e. The writer adduces the reason, more actual facts turned wrong over the period as the sup...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 403, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... decreases the percentage of the error.
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, besides, consequently, finally, however, if, so, in addition, in contrast, such as, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 31.0 19.5258426966 159% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.4196629213 97% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 14.8657303371 87% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 11.3162921348 106% => OK
Pronoun: 40.0 33.0505617978 121% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 96.0 58.6224719101 164% => OK
Nominalization: 20.0 12.9106741573 155% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2987.0 2235.4752809 134% => OK
No of words: 619.0 442.535393258 140% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.82552504039 5.05705443957 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.98795655647 4.55969084622 109% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.78801544762 2.79657885939 100% => OK
Unique words: 276.0 215.323595506 128% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.445880452342 0.4932671777 90% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 952.2 704.065955056 135% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59117977528 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 13.0 6.24550561798 208% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 10.0 4.99550561798 200% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 3.0 3.10617977528 97% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 10.0 4.38483146067 228% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 29.0 20.2370786517 143% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 23.0359550562 91% => OK
Sentence length SD: 69.2115611025 60.3974514979 115% => OK
Chars per sentence: 103.0 118.986275619 87% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.3448275862 23.4991977007 91% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.68965517241 5.21951772744 71% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 10.2758426966 39% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 13.0 5.13820224719 253% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 12.0 4.83258426966 248% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.248074480694 0.243740707755 102% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0615978396074 0.0831039109588 74% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.062815460552 0.0758088955206 83% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.140636615371 0.150359130593 94% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0750640021174 0.0667264976115 112% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.0 14.1392134831 85% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 58.62 48.8420337079 120% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.1743820225 85% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.73 12.1639044944 88% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.5 8.38706741573 101% => OK
difficult_words: 150.0 100.480337079 149% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 11.8971910112 71% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.2143820225 93% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.