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 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.
Can a novice challenge the masterpieces made by an export? Some people might give negative answers since exports, they are more sophisticated about their fields of study, so their work should have little flaws. Therefore, by no means could beginners give valuable criticisms and only those professor who have the same profound knowledge could make considerable judgement. However, from my point of view, this claim could be justifiable for some domains, yet for other spheres, fledglings’ advice might be effective to some extent.
To begin with, there is no doubt that exports could make more valuable remarks towards work in some given fields since they might have engaged into their fields for more than ten years, or perhaps even decades, so their judgement could imply some missing facts according the work that they review. This could be more noticeable when it comes to some fields such as History as it is a major investigating the past so whether some one is a novice or an expert depends on the materials they have read and the historical facts they have learnt. Thus, how could a beginner who only dabble in a few documents make considerable criticisms to fight against a piece of work made by a professor? Perhaps only other experts, discovering new historical findings, could make some pertinent judgement. In short, it can be only reasonable for experts to remark on existing discoveries in terms of certain fields of study such as History.
On the other hand, maybe fledglings’ advice could be somewhat valuable for other fields, especially for technological spheres. We live in a world with the rapid development of technology, so some achievements made a few years ago might be outdated and should be modified by contemporary generations. Take Computer Science as an example. A massive amount of solutions are released on the open-source platform, Github, for no matter experts or novices to review. For instance, maybe the original version was written by Java 7, but nowadays, such a computer language has been updated to the eighth version, so novices who start with the latest version could make some valuable advice or even criticisms in order to improve the formerly established repository. To sum up, some exports might truly expertise at one skill, but new skills could be developed, and even beginners starting with the latest development might provide some improvement via criticizing.
All in all, it is extremely hard to determine whether critical judgement made by those who can not be counted as experts is valuable or not since the situation could vary according to the fields of study. However, to keep an open mind and to examine every criticism are definitely conducive to ameliorate existing work.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 285, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'this professor' or 'those professors'?
Suggestion: this professor; those professors
...nners give valuable criticisms and only those professor who have the same profound knowledge co...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 425, Rule ID: ANY_BODY[1]
Message: Did you mean 'someone'?
Suggestion: someone
...major investigating the past so whether some one is a novice or an expert depends on the...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, however, if, may, so, therefore, thus, for instance, in short, no doubt, such as, to begin with, to sum up, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.5258426966 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 23.0 12.4196629213 185% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 14.8657303371 87% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 11.3162921348 62% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 21.0 33.0505617978 64% => OK
Preposition: 53.0 58.6224719101 90% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 12.9106741573 77% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2302.0 2235.4752809 103% => OK
No of words: 450.0 442.535393258 102% => OK
Chars per words: 5.11555555556 5.05705443957 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.6057793516 4.55969084622 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.82545746323 2.79657885939 101% => OK
Unique words: 230.0 215.323595506 107% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.511111111111 0.4932671777 104% => OK
syllable_count: 733.5 704.065955056 104% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 6.24550561798 96% => OK
Article: 1.0 4.99550561798 20% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 3.10617977528 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 5.0 1.77640449438 281% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 7.0 4.38483146067 160% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 20.2370786517 84% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 26.0 23.0359550562 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 69.3882811721 60.3974514979 115% => OK
Chars per sentence: 135.411764706 118.986275619 114% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.4705882353 23.4991977007 113% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.64705882353 5.21951772744 147% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 10.2758426966 88% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 5.13820224719 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.128343695643 0.243740707755 53% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0477790656266 0.0831039109588 57% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.027319968396 0.0758088955206 36% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0947490531415 0.150359130593 63% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0250210191592 0.0667264976115 37% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.9 14.1392134831 112% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 45.09 48.8420337079 92% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 12.1743820225 110% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.71 12.1639044944 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.75 8.38706741573 104% => OK
difficult_words: 109.0 100.480337079 108% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 11.8971910112 92% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 11.2143820225 111% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.7820224719 110% => 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: 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.