Imagination can be loosely defined as the synthesis of new ideas. There is some merit to the claim that lacking constraints is valuable when considering the creation of new thoughts and ideas. However, this reasoning is quite exclusive and extreme. When considering value, there are several components within the realm of experience that should not be overlooked.
Experience offers a more pragmatic and proactive methodology to acting on imagination. Experienced individuals have several time sparing advantages that others do not. These advantages include knowing what has been done and what has not been done before. Building on this idea, experience offers knowledge of what will and will not work. One might imagine the construction of a medical device that, for instance, may be useful in the induction of spinal anesthesia. Theoretically, a larger bore catheter may allow for desirably faster and more effective pain control. However, experience may already note that this idea has been exhausted in the past. While the idea sounds logical and new in theory, experienced individuals understand that it has been well established and appreciated that faster delivery of anesthesia often has an opposite effect and is contraindicated based on a number of poor outcomes.
Experience also offers the tools needed to execute or test new ideas. Thinking of a new idea has value, but proving worth and possibility is another. Take antibiotic therapy for instance. It is easy to imagine a method for controlling virulent and resistant bacterial infections. Methods may sound well and work well in theory. Nevertheless, considerable value can be placed in the rigorous and definitive testing of any hypothesis, regardless of creativity level. Testing bacterial vulnerability to therapy takes time and knowledge that comes from years of education and practical experience.
Conclusively, there is value to creativity lacking experience. Situationally, out-of-the-box thinking can be highly sought after. However, experience also offers several comparably valuable aspects that should not be overlooked especially when considering pragmatism and ease of execution.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, however, look, may, nevertheless, so, well, while, for instance
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.5258426966 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.4196629213 97% => OK
Conjunction : 18.0 14.8657303371 121% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 11.3162921348 106% => OK
Pronoun: 15.0 33.0505617978 45% => OK
Preposition: 38.0 58.6224719101 65% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 12.9106741573 132% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1844.0 2235.4752809 82% => OK
No of words: 327.0 442.535393258 74% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.63914373089 5.05705443957 112% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.25242769721 4.55969084622 93% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.12566352409 2.79657885939 112% => OK
Unique words: 183.0 215.323595506 85% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.559633027523 0.4932671777 113% => OK
syllable_count: 597.6 704.065955056 85% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.59117977528 113% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 6.24550561798 48% => OK
Article: 1.0 4.99550561798 20% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.38483146067 23% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 20.2370786517 109% => OK
Sentence length: 14.0 23.0359550562 61% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 46.1336765899 60.3974514979 76% => OK
Chars per sentence: 83.8181818182 118.986275619 70% => OK
Words per sentence: 14.8636363636 23.4991977007 63% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.36363636364 5.21951772744 64% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 7.80617977528 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 10.2758426966 127% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 5.13820224719 78% => 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: 0.125276349682 0.243740707755 51% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0360490371154 0.0831039109588 43% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0288544082632 0.0758088955206 38% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0765544381293 0.150359130593 51% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0233863119831 0.0667264976115 35% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.6 14.1392134831 89% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 40.34 48.8420337079 83% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.1743820225 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.84 12.1639044944 122% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.69 8.38706741573 116% => OK
difficult_words: 111.0 100.480337079 110% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.5 11.8971910112 55% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 7.6 11.2143820225 68% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.7820224719 127% => 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: 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.