History is a web of unsolved mysteries that our historians are trying to fill. It is a taxing job that requires imagination as well as knowledge of how things work in that particular era. For example, lets consider that historians found a letter that was written by Gandi with some gaps. It is easier to strike off words like "gonna", "like", "imma" and other slang words as they are not appropriate for the particular generation he came from. But at the same time the historians should posses some level of imagination or creativity to piece this puzzle presented by the letter.
Historians spend most of their life studying the ways things worked in the past to draw out the most plausible and accurate assumptions and conclusions to fill the blanks. It is much like treasure hunting but instead of wealth they are in search of truth. This information can come from diaries or letters left behind by the ancestors or from artifices left behind by artists or the folklores that are passed down from generation to generation with least convolution among the tribes. Despite the sources, it is wise to keep note of all the information available at present to investigate new discoveries in the future.
Many assume that historians are adept with creativity in order to solve mysteries that are presented by the past. But unlike this popular assumption, historians use deductions to fill these voids. It is much like how Sherlock Holmes work. Gather and observe every ounce of information available and make the most logical outcomes of situations. Though imagination is needed to arrive at these results, very few historians require creativity in their occupation. Consider the above later. If the letter has a date on it, the period or the circumstances can be deduced easily. Assuming the letter was written in the period of world war two, knowing that he was an active member of this war it is not hard to decipher the contents of this letter. In this case no creativity is required to decipher the letter but education about past is needed.
But this does not explain the reason for existence of uncountable books about one past incident. If past is taken as a question with single answer then it becomes shackled. A single incident can be viewed from different perspectives under different circumstances and from the sides of different people with different backgrounds. Describing a single incident from the eyes of one individual is not an accurate measurement of analysis. And yet accumulation of the views present is not possible as most times resources or evidences of these different perspectives is not available currently. Consider the act of approving gay marriage rights. Many posses different views on it. So when describing it as a past incident requires summarizing both the sides, that is the supporters and the protesters. Assume that the historians have no record on the protesters and their views or workings. This is where historians master their creativity to deduce rather than current knowledge. This creativity is born out of the knowledge the historian posses about the past and the knowledge of that era. It is a by product of comparing both the present and the past atmospheres and drawing out the most stable and plausible description. It is a tool historians use without even acknowledging.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 444, Rule ID: THE_SUPERLATIVE[3]
Message: A determiner is probably missing here: 'with the least'.
Suggestion: with the least
...ssed down from generation to generation with least convolution among the tribes. Despite t...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 1277, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...torians use without even acknowledging.
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, if, so, then, well, for example, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 30.0 19.5258426966 154% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 12.4196629213 32% => OK
Conjunction : 26.0 14.8657303371 175% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 11.3162921348 124% => OK
Pronoun: 45.0 33.0505617978 136% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 93.0 58.6224719101 159% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 12.9106741573 139% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2799.0 2235.4752809 125% => OK
No of words: 556.0 442.535393258 126% => OK
Chars per words: 5.03417266187 5.05705443957 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.85588840946 4.55969084622 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.97008346029 2.79657885939 106% => OK
Unique words: 260.0 215.323595506 121% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.467625899281 0.4932671777 95% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 881.1 704.065955056 125% => 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: 2.0 4.99550561798 40% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 3.10617977528 97% => OK
Conjunction: 5.0 1.77640449438 281% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 2.0 4.38483146067 46% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 31.0 20.2370786517 153% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 23.0359550562 74% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 44.8815529826 60.3974514979 74% => OK
Chars per sentence: 90.2903225806 118.986275619 76% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.935483871 23.4991977007 76% => OK
Discourse Markers: 1.54838709677 5.21951772744 30% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 15.0 10.2758426966 146% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 5.13820224719 39% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 14.0 4.83258426966 290% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.128638059679 0.243740707755 53% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0365032555284 0.0831039109588 44% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0393272877192 0.0758088955206 52% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0772144035868 0.150359130593 51% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0432567948334 0.0667264976115 65% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.2 14.1392134831 79% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 54.22 48.8420337079 111% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 12.1743820225 81% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.6 12.1639044944 95% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.77 8.38706741573 93% => OK
difficult_words: 116.0 100.480337079 115% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 11.8971910112 101% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 11.2143820225 78% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => 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: 54.17 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.25 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.