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.
History is a pertinent aspect of humanity. Without the knowledge of what the past looks like, the future can not be ascertained. Learning about history is central to the existence of humans and I mostly agree with the fact that it requires creativity in construing historical accounts, documents and antiques from the past. However, creativity alone is not the only tool needed to wholly grasp the scope of historical learning.
First of all, the power of creativity is needed to understand whatever artifact is presented before you to discern. Without innovation, a bulk of the current knowledge on how human being has evolved from prokaryotes in the past to the intricate connection of cells today will not be available. Archaeologist and paleontologist have worked in synergy to provide what we know today using remnants discovered from ages past. Bones of dinosaurs, mummies from Egyptian tombs, war remains from war fronts and a host of other documents have been used to get the current body of knowledge. Without creativity, making meaning out of those discovered items would contribute no relevance to what we know today.
Furthermore, abstract thinking is pivotal to making sense out of historical documents. Having access to the documents alone is not enough, ensuring the documents is meaningfully interpreted is the essence. From these documents, making inferences about the account of narrated won’t be possible without the power of first creating an imagination about it. This imagination might not be totally true, however with the creativity therein, the information from this can be extracted for use. For instance, the history of the creation of the world as documented in the holy book will make no sense if there is no imagination to give life to the documentation. Also, the description of various chemical processes such as electrolysis will make no sense by just reading the documentation of Michael Faraday who discovered the process. With abstract thinking, these documentations are reproducible just by using the creative thinking process.
On the other hand, learning about ancient times is an exacting task that needs a meticulous approach. For these to happen, individual needs the self will and passion to pursue the acquisition of such knowledge. There are people who are not bothered about what history has to say and the successful living of an individual does not necessarily hinge on the need to apprehend history. For example, a desolate person won’t bother to know what happened to humanity in the sixteenth century. It does nothing to him and has no meaning to him. For any individual to take up the responsibility of learning about history, it often comes as a leisure or a focus of passion for the individual.
In conclusion, learning about history without doubt requires creativity and innovation in order to understand and interpret the documents, artifacts and historical account. However, creativity alone will not get the job done as there are other factors needed to fully understand the scope of history and the relevance to the recent clime.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 204, Rule ID: AGREE_WITH_THE_FACT[1]
Message: Use simply 'agree that'.
Suggestion: agree that
...to the existence of humans and I mostly agree with the fact that it requires creativity in construing hi...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, furthermore, however, if, look, so, as to, for example, for instance, in conclusion, such as, first of all, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 19.5258426966 113% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.4196629213 81% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 14.8657303371 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 4.0 11.3162921348 35% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 18.0 33.0505617978 54% => OK
Preposition: 89.0 58.6224719101 152% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 12.9106741573 132% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2607.0 2235.4752809 117% => OK
No of words: 500.0 442.535393258 113% => OK
Chars per words: 5.214 5.05705443957 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.72870804502 4.55969084622 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.94318127203 2.79657885939 105% => OK
Unique words: 243.0 215.323595506 113% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.486 0.4932671777 99% => OK
syllable_count: 832.5 704.065955056 118% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 6.24550561798 64% => OK
Article: 7.0 4.99550561798 140% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 3.10617977528 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.38483146067 160% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 20.2370786517 119% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 23.0359550562 87% => OK
Sentence length SD: 39.5005054468 60.3974514979 65% => OK
Chars per sentence: 108.625 118.986275619 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.8333333333 23.4991977007 89% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.95833333333 5.21951772744 114% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 15.0 10.2758426966 146% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 5.13820224719 117% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.83258426966 62% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.237563607146 0.243740707755 97% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0650677389092 0.0831039109588 78% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0577424177507 0.0758088955206 76% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.136896716076 0.150359130593 91% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0468802735937 0.0667264976115 70% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.5 14.1392134831 95% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 42.72 48.8420337079 87% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.1743820225 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.94 12.1639044944 106% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.7 8.38706741573 104% => OK
difficult_words: 129.0 100.480337079 128% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 11.8971910112 71% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.2143820225 89% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.