Claim: Though often considered an objective pursuit, learning about the historical past requires creativity.
Reason: Because we can never know the past directly, we must reconstruct it by imaginatively interpreting historical accounts, documents, and artifacts.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim and the reason on which the claim is based.
Do we really need to be creative to learn about our historic past? The author claims so, by giving the reason that since we can never fully know the direct past completely, we can re-interpret it by creatively interpreting the historic accounts, artifacts etc. I concede that without creative imagination it will be difficult to understand our historic accounts. Otherwise, in the Utopian world, I would not agree to make creative assumptions in understanding our history simply because it might distort our past.
To start with, I would like bring in limelight the fact that historical evidences are mostly, never excavated in a chronological order. As a result of which, one requires acumen and creativity to joints the dots and form a comprehensive story which could depict the history in its most commensurate form. For a supporting example one needs to think of no further than their school’s history textbooks, which had myriad of information from far past like World War-I and World War-II. If studied closely one can find meticulous details of how it started, weapons used, mode of communication, scale of destruction, it’s impact so on and so forth. This would not have been possible if the historians would not have used their creative intellect to form a meaning stories from the evidences found on the ground.
An even more striking example of why creativity is required in learning about our historic past can be understood by the historic stories which are well-renowned about the inventions and discovery of various tools and concepts. How do we know that Newton discovered the concept of Gravity, when he wondered why the apple from the tree fall downwards only? This is because, interpretation of past is not easy and historian and scientists worked together to understand the chronology of events, that might have taken place which led to the final outcome which we know of now.
At a personal level, I also believe that interpreting past from unrelated evidence can be a little trickery and might involve some amount of error. This is because while analyzing and interpreting are prejudices can also play some role in manifesting the history. If a historian feels that, the people of some civilization had aggressive disposition. He might believe that the end of the civilization was due to some internal dissent which might not be the case.
In sum, unless the biases are not playing any role in understanding our past, I think creatively interpreting the history accounts, artifacts and documents can be a fruitful method in the analysis of the past or historic events.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 182, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...result of which, one requires acumen and creativity to joints the dots and form a...
^^
Line 3, column 475, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ation from far past like World War-I and World War-II. If studied closely one can...
^^
Line 3, column 772, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[2]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'story'?
Suggestion: story
...ir creative intellect to form a meaning stories from the evidences found on the ground....
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, if, really, so, well, while, i think, as a result, to start with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 19.5258426966 82% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 19.0 12.4196629213 153% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 14.8657303371 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 11.3162921348 141% => OK
Pronoun: 37.0 33.0505617978 112% => OK
Preposition: 65.0 58.6224719101 111% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 12.9106741573 70% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2183.0 2235.4752809 98% => OK
No of words: 430.0 442.535393258 97% => OK
Chars per words: 5.07674418605 5.05705443957 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.55372829156 4.55969084622 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.92794391982 2.79657885939 105% => OK
Unique words: 229.0 215.323595506 106% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.532558139535 0.4932671777 108% => OK
syllable_count: 682.2 704.065955056 97% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 11.0 6.24550561798 176% => OK
Article: 3.0 4.99550561798 60% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 3.10617977528 161% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.38483146067 114% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 20.2370786517 84% => 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: 46.7608211483 60.3974514979 77% => OK
Chars per sentence: 128.411764706 118.986275619 108% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.2941176471 23.4991977007 108% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.11764705882 5.21951772744 79% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 7.80617977528 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 10.2758426966 78% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 5.13820224719 136% => 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: 0.292320813216 0.243740707755 120% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0986287221182 0.0831039109588 119% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.100090884655 0.0758088955206 132% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.175463480115 0.150359130593 117% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.107152273116 0.0667264976115 161% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.1 14.1392134831 107% => 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: 12.48 12.1639044944 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.66 8.38706741573 103% => OK
difficult_words: 103.0 100.480337079 103% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 11.8971910112 97% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.2143820225 107% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.