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.
Now-a-days, unlike previous decades when technology was still fledgling, the techonlogy has evolved and consequently, bestowed us so much luxuries facilities to the extent that we can know about daily, news and current trend in the world in palm of our hand. The information we get is swift and efficent but question araises: are these facts we consume in daily basis true? Here pompt asserts that we must construe the information from different sources as specious at the first glance and try to investigate on its credibility instead of blindly following it. I mostly agree with the statement and defend my thesis on the basis following two reasons with persuasive evidence.
Firstly, retrospecting our glorious past in the field of science and technology, most of the inventions and discoveries were produced by erudite scholars and scientists by challenging previously held view ,which was at the time considered "fact". For instance Albert Einstien took the work on Newton as incomplete theory rather than categorical fact and went on searching new phenomena of nature. As a result, he discovered special relativity and built base for modern physics. So, there are countless instances when competing previously held belief led to unprecedented discoveries and innovations.
Secondly, as the reason given by prompt itself, most of the information people consume information from different sources, specially in news and social media sites, and most of the information provided by the source are generally , at best, spurious and , at worse, outright false. For instance, in India, the news which broke two years ago after declaration of new notes which stated that the paper note contained nano chip inside. The information we get are mostly result of biased view of people.
Some people may argue that searching for the credibility of the fact is taxing and stressful. However, if these so-called "facts" are not meticulously put under scrutiny, this may cause quandry which information consumer may not have expected.
In conclusion, glaring at the explict evidence we have, it is very safe to say that mistrusting and questioning the information we consume is better than blindly believing it without any grounds or bases.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 134, Rule ID: MUCH_COUNTABLE[1]
Message: Use 'many' with countable nouns.
Suggestion: many
...volved and consequently, bestowed us so much luxuries facilities to the extent that ...
^^^^
Line 2, column 205, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma, but not before the comma
Suggestion: ,
...ists by challenging previously held view ,which was at the time considered 'f...
^^
Line 3, column 230, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma, but not before the comma
Suggestion: ,
...ion provided by the source are generally , at best, spurious and , at worse, outri...
^^
Line 3, column 254, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma, but not before the comma
Suggestion: ,
...ce are generally , at best, spurious and , at worse, outright false. For instance,...
^^
Line 5, column 112, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... to say that mistrusting and questioning the information we consume is better tha...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, consequently, first, firstly, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, still, for instance, in conclusion, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 19.5258426966 61% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 12.4196629213 40% => OK
Conjunction : 18.0 14.8657303371 121% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 11.3162921348 97% => OK
Pronoun: 26.0 33.0505617978 79% => OK
Preposition: 45.0 58.6224719101 77% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 12.9106741573 124% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1899.0 2235.4752809 85% => OK
No of words: 355.0 442.535393258 80% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.34929577465 5.05705443957 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.34067318298 4.55969084622 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.01708630161 2.79657885939 108% => OK
Unique words: 225.0 215.323595506 104% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.633802816901 0.4932671777 128% => OK
syllable_count: 584.1 704.065955056 83% => 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: 4.0 4.99550561798 80% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 3.10617977528 97% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.38483146067 91% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 20.2370786517 69% => 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: 25.0 23.0359550562 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 66.4226187809 60.3974514979 110% => OK
Chars per sentence: 135.642857143 118.986275619 114% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.3571428571 23.4991977007 108% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.71428571429 5.21951772744 167% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 7.80617977528 64% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 10.2758426966 68% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 5.13820224719 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.83258426966 83% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.124164195322 0.243740707755 51% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0431605091036 0.0831039109588 52% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0381777248272 0.0758088955206 50% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.072692655724 0.150359130593 48% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.037016350642 0.0667264976115 55% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.4 14.1392134831 116% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 46.1 48.8420337079 94% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.0 12.1743820225 107% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.05 12.1639044944 116% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.64 8.38706741573 115% => OK
difficult_words: 107.0 100.480337079 106% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 11.8971910112 122% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.2143820225 107% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.7820224719 127% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.