Claim: Knowing about the past cannot help people to make important decisions today.
Reason: The world today is significantly more complex than it was even in the relatively recent past.
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 the knowledge about history is not beneficial for the today's crucial tasks. The writer further reasons the current complicated lifestyle does not match with the past trend. I fundamentally do not concur with the claim and its adherence clue.
First of all, the factor which convinces me that the information from the past is useful is the prediction of future success or failures according to the past event. Actually, the previous trend ending either success or defeat; sheds a light and specify a riskless path which enhances the chance of triumph. A lucid example which gives adherence to my perspective is the usage of the previous financial trend by the economists for the anticipation of the future loss or profit. At the field of economic, the last decade's pecuniary stands which are presented by various table or graphs, represent the profitable ways of investment for companies which possesses fewer risks.
Another striking field which consistently gains the rearing from the past is the field of science. It is obvious that most of the scientific accomplishment and achievement are base on the previous activity. Indeed, activities either right or wrong by the previous scholars, prepare a basement for the further flourishment on the branch. I prefer to mention the formation of the Periodic Table in the field of chemistry which took approximate a century to shape and gain its ultimate stand. This long duration shows that this table did not arrange by the same chemist; however, lots of chemists in a different period of time during history made the modification and alteration. Although there are changes in the previous activities, the holistic and initial scheme of table did not alter. In addition, each scientist according to the previous activities goes a step further than the last chemist did.
Finally, the reason for a prompt which considered the complexity of modern life as the barrier for adapting the idea from the past events is an ambiguous clue. Based on technological advancement, there are lots of enhancements which make the current world does not seem similar to the last one. Nevertheless, the human-beings possess the same nature with the enhanced understanding which shows there is no difference; and by the consideration of analogies, the implementation of the previous lessons in the current situation could be beneficial. I prefer to the mention of World War I and II which possess disaster side-effects such as famine, mortality, shortage of productivity and development. Maybe for the sake of enhancement of the modern people cerebrations the same event will not happen; however, the negative influence of hostility and discrimination of this wars which are also common in the current life should be considered as a lesson to own a peaceful global.
To wrap it up, all the aforementioned arguments illustrate my outlook which does not approve this prompt.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 610, Rule ID: PERIOD_OF_TIME[1]
Message: Use simply 'period'.
Suggestion: period
...owever, lots of chemists in a different period of time during history made the modification an...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 901, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...step further than the last chemist did. Finally, the reason for a prompt which c...
^^^^
Line 4, column 865, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'these'?
Suggestion: these
...ence of hostility and discrimination of this wars which are also common in the curre...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, finally, first, however, if, look, may, nevertheless, so, in addition, such as, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 19.5258426966 77% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 12.4196629213 24% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 14.8657303371 101% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 11.3162921348 141% => OK
Pronoun: 18.0 33.0505617978 54% => OK
Preposition: 62.0 58.6224719101 106% => OK
Nominalization: 27.0 12.9106741573 209% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2450.0 2235.4752809 110% => OK
No of words: 474.0 442.535393258 107% => OK
Chars per words: 5.16877637131 5.05705443957 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.66599839874 4.55969084622 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.9566710837 2.79657885939 106% => OK
Unique words: 248.0 215.323595506 115% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.523206751055 0.4932671777 106% => OK
syllable_count: 753.3 704.065955056 107% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 6.24550561798 80% => OK
Article: 11.0 4.99550561798 220% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 1.0 3.10617977528 32% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.38483146067 68% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 20.2370786517 99% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 23.0359550562 100% => OK
Sentence length SD: 51.3985408353 60.3974514979 85% => OK
Chars per sentence: 122.5 118.986275619 103% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.7 23.4991977007 101% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.4 5.21951772744 103% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 7.80617977528 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 10.2758426966 68% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 5.13820224719 117% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.83258426966 145% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.176549031857 0.243740707755 72% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0530642279613 0.0831039109588 64% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0395606381229 0.0758088955206 52% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0955761379832 0.150359130593 64% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0384371631786 0.0667264976115 58% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.8 14.1392134831 105% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.13 48.8420337079 99% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.1743820225 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.0 12.1639044944 107% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.21 8.38706741573 110% => OK
difficult_words: 133.0 100.480337079 132% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 11.8971910112 67% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.2143820225 100% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.7820224719 110% => 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.