Critical judgment 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 statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position.
Experts possess profound knowledge on their fields acquired from several years of endeavor. In contrast, layman do not possess the insight those experts have but can judge the work in a different angle thus bringing fresh air.
Admittedly, maverick's judgements are credible compared to the dabblers. Their mastery in specific fields enable them to penetrate through the work, because of the numerous trial and error process they have come through to be in the current position. Compared to novice's lack of knowledge about such discipline, they would be able to provide a much reliable appraisement. For instance, before awarding the Fields medal in math, the proposed papers are reviewed by a group of the most prominent professors of the field to validate the proposed theories. Hence, depending on experts would be a safe decision in the case you are searching for a reliable judgement.
On the other hand, experts may be infatuated by their love to their fields that they might not be able to be objective. The disposition to support ideas that are coherent with ours and denunciate that derogates ours is a natural human instinct which applies to the authorities as well. The authorities are especially weak, because by agreeing to opposing ideas might mean the fallacy of theirs which they have spent their lives on. For instance, when Copernicus asserted that the earth revolves around the sun, acknowledged scientist of the time all dissented with the idea because of the fear that they will lose their positions. Therefore, in some cases the maverick's opinions may be parochial.
Furthermore, the neophyte can sometimes show out of the box thinking. Neophytes, since they are not exposed to the widely held notions, will be able to view the work in a different angle thus suggesting a unexpected type of evaluation. For instance, in arts and music Pablo Piccasso's pictures were regarded as strange and even futile by the realistic aestheticists of the era. However, to a layman the pictures may have seem to possess great value. All in all, a novice not contaminated by the rampant views of the experts, might be the ones that realize the real virtues of a production.
In conclusion, although asking a professional for the confirmation a safe way, it does not ensure success because of the provincial view they may possess about the discipline. Rather, a neophyte could present better comments regarding their unsullied minds.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 13, column 204, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'an' instead of 'a' if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g. 'an article', 'an hour'
Suggestion: an
...rk in a different angle thus suggesting a unexpected type of evaluation. For inst...
^
Line 13, column 421, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Use past participle here: 'seemed'.
Suggestion: seemed
...ever, to a layman the pictures may have seem to possess great value. All in all, a n...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, furthermore, hence, however, if, may, regarding, so, therefore, thus, well, for instance, in conclusion, in contrast, in some cases, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 19.5258426966 87% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.4196629213 113% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 14.8657303371 34% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 9.0 11.3162921348 80% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 27.0 33.0505617978 82% => OK
Preposition: 60.0 58.6224719101 102% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 12.9106741573 77% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2058.0 2235.4752809 92% => OK
No of words: 401.0 442.535393258 91% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.13216957606 5.05705443957 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.47492842339 4.55969084622 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.77066671598 2.79657885939 99% => OK
Unique words: 218.0 215.323595506 101% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.543640897756 0.4932671777 110% => OK
syllable_count: 631.8 704.065955056 90% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 6.24550561798 48% => OK
Article: 6.0 4.99550561798 120% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 3.10617977528 193% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 9.0 4.38483146067 205% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 20.2370786517 94% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 23.0359550562 91% => OK
Sentence length SD: 42.0488437791 60.3974514979 70% => OK
Chars per sentence: 108.315789474 118.986275619 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.1052631579 23.4991977007 90% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.15789473684 5.21951772744 156% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 10.2758426966 88% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 5.13820224719 117% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.83258426966 83% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.127804590948 0.243740707755 52% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0364224447024 0.0831039109588 44% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0371126203622 0.0758088955206 49% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0675631275671 0.150359130593 45% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0424361983008 0.0667264976115 64% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.3 14.1392134831 94% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 48.8420337079 103% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.92365168539 39% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.1743820225 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.47 12.1639044944 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.21 8.38706741573 110% => OK
difficult_words: 115.0 100.480337079 114% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 11.8971910112 63% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.2143820225 93% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => 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.