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History is always about past events, constructed in the light of historical documents, accounts and artifacts. While interpretation of history requires imaginative creativity, it is not the sole requisite to learn history. I mostly disagree with the claim and my reasoning will be dissimilar to the basis of this claim.
The claim may be based on the assumption that as we cannot experience the past we must rely on our imaginary vision to virtually visualize the past and interpret the historical happenings in that way. However, as history is about real events, only imagining may mislead us to articulate in such a way that the outmost result will be a fiction rather than history. For instance, upon observing the remaining artifacts of an old palace, we may indicate about the reign of any famous emperor in that place. The emperor may be a character of fiction or folklore being told from generation to generation of any particular area. If in this case we don’t do further examination, research and only interpret relying on creativity, the it will be a fabrication, not historical learning.
In contrast to the claim, history learning requires extensive training, research methodology, and way of unfolding the cryptic information not the creativity only. For example, we may learn historical facts from many artifacts, used commodities of ancient people, cryptic messages written on papyrus. Here excavation and dating technology, knowledge about ancient language are much more cardinal than our creativity. Historian knew about Moynamoti and Buddha bihar in Kumilla, Bangladesh by excavation and examining the artifacts present in the bihar and fort and then doing extensive research and matching with previous accounted history. Here creativity is none a vital player.
Finally, history always must truth, should be interpreted on the basis of solid proof otherwise debate will emerge among the historian. Human possesses different level of creativity so historian also. If they apply their own creative idea and interpret any historical event in their own way, then there is modicum of possibility of convergence. To uphold uniform idea and to learn history one should use their learning and training before creativity. Creativity always act as helping one not main condition to succeed.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 723, Rule ID: DT_PRP[1]
Message: Possible typo. Did you mean 'the' or 'it'?
Suggestion: the; it
...d only interpret relying on creativity, the it will be a fabrication, not historical l...
^^^^^^
Line 4, column 195, Rule ID: ALSO_SENT_END[1]
Message: 'Also' is not used at the end of the sentence. Use 'as well' instead.
Suggestion: as well
...ferent level of creativity so historian also. If they apply their own creative idea ...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, however, if, may, so, then, while, for example, for instance, in contrast, in contrast to
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 19.5258426966 67% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.4196629213 113% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 14.8657303371 101% => OK
Relative clauses : 4.0 11.3162921348 35% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 22.0 33.0505617978 67% => OK
Preposition: 52.0 58.6224719101 89% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 12.9106741573 116% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1943.0 2235.4752809 87% => OK
No of words: 364.0 442.535393258 82% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.33791208791 5.05705443957 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.36792674256 4.55969084622 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.91201922996 2.79657885939 104% => OK
Unique words: 201.0 215.323595506 93% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.552197802198 0.4932671777 112% => OK
syllable_count: 627.3 704.065955056 89% => 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: 3.0 4.99550561798 60% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 3.10617977528 129% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.38483146067 68% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 20.2370786517 89% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 23.0359550562 87% => OK
Sentence length SD: 44.5892432912 60.3974514979 74% => OK
Chars per sentence: 107.944444444 118.986275619 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.2222222222 23.4991977007 86% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.77777777778 5.21951772744 111% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 10.2758426966 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 5.13820224719 39% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.83258426966 124% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.27698017116 0.243740707755 114% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0818227068915 0.0831039109588 98% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0642334446351 0.0758088955206 85% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.167793753917 0.150359130593 112% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0505057844142 0.0667264976115 76% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.8 14.1392134831 98% => 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: 13.69 12.1639044944 113% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.36 8.38706741573 112% => OK
difficult_words: 109.0 100.480337079 108% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 11.8971910112 101% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.2143820225 89% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.7820224719 119% => 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: 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.