Critical judgment of work in any given field has little value unless it comes from someone who is an expert in that field.
Critical judgment of a piece of work from someone in the fields other than the creator himself or herself often provides incisive opinions that possess meaningful perspectives different from that of the creators. As a result, nowadays, the multidisciplinary collaboration from different professions is encouraged as the opinions and comments from those different area results in the desirable outputs or inventions. Thus, I contend that critical judgment also has its value even though it may be not derived directly from someone well-known in that specific area.
Many science disciplines now take advice from experts of other seemingly irrelevant fields. On top of that, those scientists even incorporate their own expertise and technologies within their own domain to assist their research projects. Take the human genome for instance. Billions of dollars have been spent on deciphering the human genetic code. However, the innumerable repetitive base pairs impeded the breakthrough in its development. Thanks to the aid of the powerful computational techniques and sophisticated analytical algorithms from the field of computer science, those chaotic patterns in the huge amount of gene pairs can be transforming into a comprehensive and meaningful dataset for biologists. This case exemplifies the importance of the critical evaluation and opinions provided by experts other than the original discipline itself.
However, critical judgment from non-experts, or even laypeople, also has its values. In many fields, such as marketing and politics, feedback from customers and citizens are very important. For example, in the field of marketing, it is important to understand the demands of targeted customers. In this case, opinions and advice from them are both indispensables in assessing the suitability of product design or consumer preference which are keys to the company’s success. Similarly, governors and legislators who advocate certain policies also need to assess the effectiveness of their policies by listening to the feedback, comment, and even criticism of citizens. Critical evaluations, rather than experts, from these laypeople, provide more direct and precious inputs concerning their needs.
Despite the importance of critical judgment from non-experts, it may not necessarily hold that their opinions are always needed or beneficial. Some fields are highly professional or even highly regulated, making it difficult to take ordinary comments from normal people. For example, in the field of medicine, it would not be realistic to survey to gather opinions from people like an accountant or a janitor to improve the quality of a heart transplant or brain surgery. In other words, these are fields that require years of experience to be proficient, and thus these professionals may only take advice from their peers or experts of similar professions.
As we can see, critical judgment from people outside that specific area also has its values. It is almost always welcome to listen to advice from different fields as they might provide unexpected perspectives and inputs. However, certain fields are so highly differentiated that advice from non-experts cannot be easily assimilated. In short, critical judgment is imp[ortant, but it also depends on the nature of that specific field.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 798, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...precious inputs concerning their needs. Despite the importance of critical judgm...
^^^^^
Line 9, column 368, Rule ID: EN_UNPAIRED_BRACKETS
Message: Unpaired symbol: ']' seems to be missing
...ated. In short, critical judgment is imp[ortant, but it also depends on the natur...
^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, however, if, may, similarly, so, thus, well, for example, for instance, in short, such as, as a result, in other words, on top of that
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 19.5258426966 87% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.4196629213 72% => OK
Conjunction : 23.0 14.8657303371 155% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 11.3162921348 106% => OK
Pronoun: 43.0 33.0505617978 130% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 74.0 58.6224719101 126% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 12.9106741573 124% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2822.0 2235.4752809 126% => OK
No of words: 503.0 442.535393258 114% => OK
Chars per words: 5.61033797217 5.05705443957 111% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.73578520332 4.55969084622 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.05188866152 2.79657885939 109% => OK
Unique words: 262.0 215.323595506 122% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.520874751491 0.4932671777 106% => OK
syllable_count: 879.3 704.065955056 125% => 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: 2.0 4.99550561798 40% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.77640449438 225% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 9.0 4.38483146067 205% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 20.2370786517 119% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 23.0359550562 87% => OK
Sentence length SD: 52.8093892904 60.3974514979 87% => OK
Chars per sentence: 117.583333333 118.986275619 99% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.9583333333 23.4991977007 89% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.04166666667 5.21951772744 116% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 15.0 10.2758426966 146% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 5.13820224719 78% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.83258426966 103% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.296379964905 0.243740707755 122% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0846183518715 0.0831039109588 102% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0600805896828 0.0758088955206 79% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.182757864017 0.150359130593 122% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0601912557007 0.0667264976115 90% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.5 14.1392134831 110% => 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: 15.26 12.1639044944 125% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.37 8.38706741573 112% => OK
difficult_words: 151.0 100.480337079 150% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 11.8971910112 122% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.2143820225 89% => OK
text_standard: 16.0 11.7820224719 136% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.