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.
The controversial issue of whether critical judgment of work from a layman has little value is a topic worth of debate. Indisputably, the opinion from an expert is usually extremely helpful, however an amateur can help us to focus on some practical details that we may neglect. Thus, I partially agree with the claim since both the expert and the layman can provide us with helpful insights.
The main reason which leads me to partially agree with the claim is that it is certainly true that an expert’s judgment is always extremely helpful. In order to show my point, we can think about real life examples where expert’s judgments are paid. Consider the case of consulting firms in the business filed: Deloitte or KPMG. They have professionals whose work is to give advice to firms about, for instance, how to successfully conduct their business. Therefore, the fact that those people is paid clearly shows that their critical judgment is worthy and extremely helpful. However, experts’ judgments can be excessively focused on specific details and neglect other aspects. For instance, if a researcher is working on how to design robots to help elderly people, experts’ help will be concerned and focused on more technical details in order to be sure that the robots work. The consequence is that they may neglect more practical properties of the robot.
Given that an expert’s critical judgment is always welcomed, how can a layman give helpful insights? People outside of a specific field can contribute by focusing on more practical issues that may be neglected by professionals. In order to show my point, we can extend the previous example about the robots’ production. Indeed, non-experts will be the final consumers of the robots and thus they can provide practical advices to the engineer. For example, how the robots should help old people to eat.
One can argue that it is not always the case that layman’s judgment can be helpful. For instance, if the government is designing a policy to reduce unemployment it could be the case that citizens have nothing to add to the economists’ views on the policy. Indeed, the latter have analyzed all the possible consequences on the economic system. However, citizens can have a prospective that lacks to economists and politicians, for instance they can imagine the real-life effects on their daily routine of the policy.
In conclusion, there is no doubt about the helpfulness of an expert’s critical judgment and this reinforced by the fact that in a real-life setting they are usually paid for consulting. Additionally, non-professionals can also provide experts with insights about practical issues that may be neglected by the latter.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, however, if, may, so, therefore, thus, for example, for instance, in conclusion, no doubt
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 24.0 19.5258426966 123% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 21.0 12.4196629213 169% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 14.8657303371 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 18.0 11.3162921348 159% => OK
Pronoun: 37.0 33.0505617978 112% => OK
Preposition: 56.0 58.6224719101 96% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 12.9106741573 101% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2305.0 2235.4752809 103% => OK
No of words: 444.0 442.535393258 100% => OK
Chars per words: 5.19144144144 5.05705443957 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.5903493882 4.55969084622 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.00085461815 2.79657885939 107% => OK
Unique words: 208.0 215.323595506 97% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.468468468468 0.4932671777 95% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 711.0 704.065955056 101% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 6.24550561798 64% => OK
Article: 6.0 4.99550561798 120% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.38483146067 68% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 20.2370786517 109% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 23.0359550562 87% => OK
Sentence length SD: 37.575296307 60.3974514979 62% => OK
Chars per sentence: 104.772727273 118.986275619 88% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.1818181818 23.4991977007 86% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.54545454545 5.21951772744 87% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 7.80617977528 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 10.2758426966 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 5.13820224719 136% => 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: 0.13874770664 0.243740707755 57% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0489819039921 0.0831039109588 59% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.053011602286 0.0758088955206 70% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0930961248615 0.150359130593 62% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0567841071311 0.0667264976115 85% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.1 14.1392134831 93% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 48.8420337079 105% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.1743820225 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.82 12.1639044944 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.47 8.38706741573 101% => OK
difficult_words: 108.0 100.480337079 107% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 11.8971910112 92% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.2143820225 89% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.7820224719 110% => 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.