The author claims that understanding the past is useless to make important decisions today. While I find this claim paradoxical on its face, the paradox is explainable, and the explanation is well supported empirically. Nevertheless, the claim is an unfair generalization in that it fails to account for other empirical evidences serving to discredit it.
A threshold problem the speaker’s claim is that its internal logic is questionable. At first impression it would seem that the different social status between the past and today may be too substantial to provide useful solutions to social agendas. Yet, the author is underrating the past’s conduction on similar current issues can provide useful clues in predicting possible outcomes. Even though its outcome turned out to be a failure, still we can investigate the causes of failure and at the same time utilize opposite methods for promising outcomes.
However, the discrepancies between the past and current conditions are tending to be larger and diverse. One of the reason could be fast technology development. Just a century ago, there were no computers and smartphones which were regarded just as some SF story sources back then. However, these became common or even compulsory devices to live in this era. So in technological fields, it won’t be beneficial to learn about past represented as an obsoleted and time-consuming one. Instead, putting effort to discovering undiscovered scientific principles or innovating current technology could be more beneficial to our future world.
Nevertheless, studying about the past still provides hardly obtainable but invaluable information in situations requiring professional knowledge. Such situations can be applied to difficult and unexpected natural disastrous situations. For example, recent Hawaii island’s volcanic eruption occurred for the first time in this century. Even Hawaii is one of the volcanic islands, the residents are not used to this eccentric situation. In this case, volcanic experts are likely to search the past records and cite some important data to predict further volcanic eruptions. If there were no data from the past, Hawaii must be in the fear of unpredictable future eruptions that will lead to even death. In some cases, the past’s records could even save our lives.
In sum, the speaker’s argument seems to be unpersuasive as it stands. Indeed, it has some merit, especially in the field of science or computer technology, yet this argument could be lacking the importance of the past’s knowledge. Since human beings are just a meager existence in this vast cosmic world, learning from the past and obtaining enlightment from them could help us out solving our current social agenda more efficiently.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 45, Rule ID: ADVERB_WORD_ORDER[9]
Message: The adverb 'hardly' is usually put before the verb 'provides'.
Suggestion: hardly provides
...rtheless, studying about the past still provides hardly obtainable but invaluable information i...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, if, may, nevertheless, so, still, then, well, while, for example, in some cases
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 25.0 19.5258426966 128% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.4196629213 97% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 14.8657303371 101% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 11.3162921348 53% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 29.0 33.0505617978 88% => OK
Preposition: 61.0 58.6224719101 104% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 12.9106741573 101% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2361.0 2235.4752809 106% => OK
No of words: 431.0 442.535393258 97% => OK
Chars per words: 5.47795823666 5.05705443957 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.55637350225 4.55969084622 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.09403863588 2.79657885939 111% => OK
Unique words: 248.0 215.323595506 115% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.575406032483 0.4932671777 117% => OK
syllable_count: 739.8 704.065955056 105% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 6.24550561798 48% => OK
Article: 9.0 4.99550561798 180% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 3.10617977528 129% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.77640449438 113% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.38483146067 114% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 20.2370786517 114% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 23.0359550562 78% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 36.5355563925 60.3974514979 60% => OK
Chars per sentence: 102.652173913 118.986275619 86% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.7391304348 23.4991977007 80% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.34782608696 5.21951772744 83% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 10.2758426966 88% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 5.13820224719 156% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.83258426966 124% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.172102179891 0.243740707755 71% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0520937057045 0.0831039109588 63% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0544634182347 0.0758088955206 72% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0980167593813 0.150359130593 65% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0224325969465 0.0667264976115 34% => 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: 13.8 14.1392134831 98% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 44.75 48.8420337079 92% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.1743820225 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.5 12.1639044944 119% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.51 8.38706741573 113% => OK
difficult_words: 136.0 100.480337079 135% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 11.8971910112 88% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.2143820225 82% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.7820224719 93% => 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.