Claim: Knowing about the past cannot help people to make important decisions today.
Reason: We are not able to make connections between current events and past events until we have some distance from both.
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.
"History repeats itself" is a common and well known wisdom across the Stock Markets around the world. Similarly, "learn from your mistakes" or "There are no better teachers than failures" are also well known allegories across all human habitats throughout the world. These phrases are clear indications as to why our past is important in order to make better decisions in the present, even if we can not change our past. While the author presents a plausible reason that until we have some distance from both the past and present events, we are unable to make connections between them, most on the top and up people have been following the "learn from your mistakes" path to reach their heights. Let us dive deep into the topic with various situation based examples.
First, science has been a great witness of better decision making while considering it's past failures. One of the prime examples is Thomas Alva Edison, who failed 10,000 times before discovering electricity. Surely, he was able to make a connection between his myriad failed experiments and the final outcome. Repetitively, in several conferences, Thomas Alva Edison has glorified his past failures more than his success. On the contrary, overnight successful scientist will disagree to the claim and comply with the author's reason. Though both of these people are right and steadfast in their opinions, depending on the circumstances and their present conditions at the time of their success, clearly the author's claim is dubious.
Considering another situation, entrepreneur Mark Zuckerberg or Elon Musk has failed innumerous times before launching Facebook and SpaceX respectively. While an overnight billionaire, who perhaps has won a lottery or gained from inheritance might not understand the importance of "learning from mistakes" clause. Again, people from both of the categories are scrupulous and firm in their opinions, but considering the later scenario, one cannot deny the past in order prevent the same mistakes in the future.
Bolstering the above two points, in politics also, the current Prime Ministers or Presidents tend to restrain themselves from committing the same mistakes of their former counterparts, by either changing the strategies or inventing nascent strategies. As for example, the recent ongoing Covid-19 pandemic has forced the world leaders to change their orthodox thinking about running a government, and try out newer method for the same in order to provide a timely resolution against the tyranny of the pandemic. Countries such as USA or Russia or UK, who were once proud on their healthcare systems, are now struggling to fight against the new strains of the Covid-19 virus. Clearly, these leaders need to learn from their previous mistakes on not upgrading vaccines or not improvising on current testing methods.
To conclude, the above mentioned points are enough to disagree to the claim that knowing about the past cannot help people to make important decisions today. Moreover, the reason presented by the author has to take into account multiple situation based observations. A particular claim can be true for someone while the same may seem dubious for others.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 311, Rule ID: HE_VERB_AGR[1]
Message: The pronoun 'someone' must be used with a third-person verb: 'whiles'.
Suggestion: whiles
...articular claim can be true for someone while the same may seem dubious for others. ...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, if, may, moreover, similarly, so, well, while, as for, as to, for example, such as, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 19.5258426966 87% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.4196629213 64% => OK
Conjunction : 19.0 14.8657303371 128% => OK
Relative clauses : 5.0 11.3162921348 44% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 30.0 33.0505617978 91% => OK
Preposition: 82.0 58.6224719101 140% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 12.9106741573 77% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2725.0 2235.4752809 122% => OK
No of words: 508.0 442.535393258 115% => OK
Chars per words: 5.36417322835 5.05705443957 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.74751043592 4.55969084622 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.89015731942 2.79657885939 103% => OK
Unique words: 289.0 215.323595506 134% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.568897637795 0.4932671777 115% => OK
syllable_count: 830.7 704.065955056 118% => 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: 5.0 4.99550561798 100% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 3.10617977528 161% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.77640449438 169% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.38483146067 137% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 20.2370786517 104% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 23.0359550562 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 57.5851927302 60.3974514979 95% => OK
Chars per sentence: 129.761904762 118.986275619 109% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.1904761905 23.4991977007 103% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.57142857143 5.21951772744 107% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 10.2758426966 107% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 5.13820224719 156% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.83258426966 41% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.261129049326 0.243740707755 107% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0723904990779 0.0831039109588 87% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0937189819212 0.0758088955206 124% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.138229393073 0.150359130593 92% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0675756594003 0.0667264976115 101% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.9 14.1392134831 112% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 47.12 48.8420337079 96% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.1743820225 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.1 12.1639044944 116% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.61 8.38706741573 115% => OK
difficult_words: 154.0 100.480337079 153% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 11.8971910112 122% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.2143820225 103% => 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.