“Critical judgement of work in any given field has little value unless it comes from someone who is an expert in that field.”Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and supporting y

Essay topics:

“Critical judgement of work in any given field has little value unless it comes from someone who is an expert in that field.”

Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and supporting your position, be sure to address the most compelling reasons and/or examples that could be used to challenge your position.

Critical judgement of work is significantly useful in a sense that it allows the work to improve in certain ways that the original author couldn’t think of. However, the fact that those critical assessments often comes from non-experts often plays out the tendency of original authors to undermine the importance of those critics. This kind of attitude seems quite relevant at a glance, inasmuch as those experts do not know much about the specifics and details of the work. But after taking some time of ruminating, it seems better to think of the critics from both experts and non-experts as valuable judgements that can be used to improve the overall quality of work.

First of all, even though the original author might be called as an ‘expert’ in that field of area, he (or she) is actually a non-expert in other fields outside the work. Think of science-fiction movies, for instance. A well-written critical article from a great physician about science-fiction movies can improve the movie business by increasing the reality of the plot based on scientific facts.

When it comes to some area that is highly related to general public, such as pop culture, the importance of these non-expert’s critics increases. There are lots of examples in hollywood that ratings from movie critics differ from the ratings from the actual public. Even if the ratings were horrible among the movie experts, almost begging towards the public “not to watch” the film, general public come out fine after watching and even rate a high score, saying “it was fun and exciting”. These manifest discrepancies, which can be easily detected in many other areas of popular culture, shows that the critics from actual experts cannot be used to predict the success of work in certain areas.

Still, some might say, that the critical judgement from non-experts cannot be accurate and shrewd enough to be accepted in an equal level with those from experts. It is true in certain ways, especially in scientific areas, where the entry barriers are relatively high for non-experts. Social debate in South Korea about the future of nuclear power plant is the case that shows the negative side effect of non-expert critics. Exaggerated fear about the danger of nuclear technology came from non-experts (environmentalists), and those groundless fear stymied the progress of technological improvement of nuclear technology in South Korea.

However, there are some ways that non-experts can still contribute in highly-academic fields. Politics is the perfect example. Even though politics seems like an academic work, vast majority of citizens (non-expert of the theory of politics) are encouraged to be a part of it. It is thought as solid truth that highly participated general public is an indicator of political advancement.

To sum up, to perceive eclectic critical judgements in a positive way, allowing a progressive improvement possible, it is important not to adhere only to the assessments from the experts, undermining the importance of those from non-experts. As many things are in the world, ‘balance’ is also significant in the world of critics.

Votes
Average: 8.3 (1 vote)
Essay Categories
Essays by the user:

Comments

Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 54, Rule ID: GENERAL_XX[1]
Message: Use simply 'public'.
Suggestion: public
... to some area that is highly related to general public, such as pop culture, the importance of...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 191, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... There are lots of examples in hollywood that ratings from movie critics differ f...
^^
Line 5, column 401, Rule ID: GENERAL_XX[1]
Message: Use simply 'public'.
Suggestion: public
...blic 'not to watch' the film, general public come out fine after watching and even r...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 330, Rule ID: GENERAL_XX[1]
Message: Use simply 'public'.
Suggestion: public
...as solid truth that highly participated general public is an indicator of political advancemen...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 10, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...n indicator of political advancement. To sum up, to perceive eclectic critical...
^^^
Line 11, column 53, Rule ID: IN_A_X_MANNER[1]
Message: Consider replacing "in a positive way" with adverb for "positive"; eg, "in a hasty manner" with "hastily".
...o perceive eclectic critical judgements in a positive way, allowing a progressive improvement pos...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, first, however, if, so, still, well, for instance, kind of, such as, first of all, it is true, to sum up

Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 24.0 19.5258426966 123% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.4196629213 64% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 14.8657303371 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 15.0 11.3162921348 133% => OK
Pronoun: 31.0 33.0505617978 94% => OK
Preposition: 87.0 58.6224719101 148% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 12.9106741573 101% => OK

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2680.0 2235.4752809 120% => OK
No of words: 507.0 442.535393258 115% => OK
Chars per words: 5.28599605523 5.05705443957 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.74517233601 4.55969084622 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.06959375892 2.79657885939 110% => OK
Unique words: 254.0 215.323595506 118% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.500986193294 0.4932671777 102% => OK
syllable_count: 837.0 704.065955056 119% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK

A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 6.24550561798 144% => OK
Article: 4.0 4.99550561798 80% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 3.10617977528 193% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.77640449438 113% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.38483146067 68% => OK

Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 20.2370786517 104% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 23.0359550562 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 54.474025931 60.3974514979 90% => OK
Chars per sentence: 127.619047619 118.986275619 107% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.1428571429 23.4991977007 103% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.95238095238 5.21951772744 114% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 4.97078651685 121% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 7.80617977528 77% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 10.2758426966 127% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 5.13820224719 97% => 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: 0.189122941102 0.243740707755 78% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0593792487699 0.0831039109588 71% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0496240515903 0.0758088955206 65% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.105400660827 0.150359130593 70% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0374856513846 0.0667264976115 56% => OK

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.6 14.1392134831 110% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 38.66 48.8420337079 79% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 12.1743820225 113% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.7 12.1639044944 113% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.69 8.38706741573 104% => OK
difficult_words: 124.0 100.480337079 123% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 11.8971910112 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.2143820225 103% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.7820224719 119% => 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.