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.
The statement linking critical judgement’s value negatively with the respective critic in terms of expertise irrespective any field and stating that if a judgement comes from a novice or inexpert one then it will carry a little value. While structural criticism is a prerequisite condition for any kind of progression in any field and it will do better performance if comes from an expert. I mostly agree with the statement for two reasons.
The statement attempts to bridge between connoisseur’s criticism and the status of any work in a positive way. This prevails in any field especially in arts and paintings. When a judgement comes from an expert of that particular field, it must bear great value and consequently will influence the artist to further work on the art and to polish it for better output. For instance, during the cubism era if a novice artist got any acclaim or any criticisms from the most famous artists Pablo Picasso, then he would take that seriously and with much more importance. On the contrary if the same judgment came from a layman or a person not involved in painting, it actually didn’t carry any kind of value.
Not only in the field of arts and paintings but the same statement also goes for science. Suppose a microbiologist is trying to develop a vaccine for a long period of time. As it is taking lot of time and huge resources, a person from another field, may be from social science or economics judges the scientist’s work as futile project. Does this criticism carry any value? Obviously not. Whereas if any expert in vaccine technology attempt to judge the process, he will take account all the pitfall and the trial and error that may delay the ultimate reach. He may opine in a constructive way that will actually help the scientist to reexamine the whole process and let him do some modification to make it faster.
In many cases, inexpert persons can do critical judgement and that carries great value. For example, in democratic country, general people are the critics of the government and the leaders are selected through their votes. Their judgement about a leading party carry huge importance and it determines, which team will lead the country for next few years. However here expert opinion also plays great role. People follows other people who is more prudent, wise in any field. General people’s opinions are often swayed by expert opinion.
So in any kind of filed for cumulative progression, expert opinion is prime and bears great value whereas inexpert and layman’s judgement carries little value sometimes.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 93, 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".
...’s criticism and the status of any work in a positive way. This prevails in any field especially ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 157, Rule ID: PERIOD_OF_TIME[1]
Message: Use simply 'period'.
Suggestion: period
... trying to develop a vaccine for a long period of time. As it is taking lot of time and huge r...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 572, Rule ID: IN_A_X_MANNER[1]
Message: Consider replacing "in a constructive way" with adverb for "constructive"; eg, "in a hasty manner" with "hastily".
... delay the ultimate reach. He may opine in a constructive way that will actually help the scientist t...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 355, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: However,
...ll lead the country for next few years. However here expert opinion also plays great ro...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, consequently, however, if, may, so, then, whereas, while, for example, for instance, kind of, in many cases, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 19.5258426966 46% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.4196629213 97% => OK
Conjunction : 22.0 14.8657303371 148% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 11.3162921348 80% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 23.0 33.0505617978 70% => OK
Preposition: 47.0 58.6224719101 80% => OK
Nominalization: 20.0 12.9106741573 155% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2156.0 2235.4752809 96% => OK
No of words: 435.0 442.535393258 98% => OK
Chars per words: 4.95632183908 5.05705443957 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.56690854021 4.55969084622 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.70907226421 2.79657885939 97% => OK
Unique words: 229.0 215.323595506 106% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.526436781609 0.4932671777 107% => OK
syllable_count: 676.8 704.065955056 96% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 6.24550561798 112% => OK
Article: 3.0 4.99550561798 60% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 3.10617977528 97% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.38483146067 91% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 20.2370786517 104% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 23.0359550562 87% => OK
Sentence length SD: 58.7469886691 60.3974514979 97% => OK
Chars per sentence: 102.666666667 118.986275619 86% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.7142857143 23.4991977007 88% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.90476190476 5.21951772744 132% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 7.80617977528 51% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 10.2758426966 117% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 5.13820224719 78% => OK
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: 0.303236875248 0.243740707755 124% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0888104971237 0.0831039109588 107% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.061568382755 0.0758088955206 81% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.179712196815 0.150359130593 120% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0775852303843 0.0667264976115 116% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.3 14.1392134831 87% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 48.8420337079 105% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.92365168539 39% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.1743820225 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.49 12.1639044944 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.62 8.38706741573 103% => OK
difficult_words: 110.0 100.480337079 109% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 11.8971910112 92% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.2143820225 89% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.7820224719 93% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 79.17 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.75 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.