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.
Feedback is a crucial part of any workplace, academic setting or everyday life, it is the representation of how the work we perform are judged by others. The affirmative ones give us a pat on the back while the critical ones usually provides a direction for improvement. We often value feedback differently, whether conscious or not, depending on the people they originate from. Some may only value critical judgements when it comes from someone who is an expert in that field. However, I would argue that while it is true that experts are more capable in providing critical judgement, more often than not, perspective from those with a different background can also be just as insightful and valuable.
Without a doubt, an expert would be in a superior position than a layperson to provide critical judgement merely due to their extensive knowledge on the subject matter. This is true especially in highly technical fields. Take mathematical proofs as an example. To the undertrained such as myself, practically any claimed solution the four-color problem would be undecipherable, let alone identify any possible mistakes in the process. In this case, opinions from those not educated enough in the field hardly matters, as they are simply not equipped with the knowledge to fully comprehend the work in the first place, not to mentioned giving a justified critical judgement. Extending this idea to a more accessible field, in sports, those who are most seasoned usually understand the game, the player as well as the tactics much better to be able to provide judgement.
Nonetheless, the current societal development shows more and more collaborations in different disciplines. This usually calls for the input from other fields to justify the decisions made based on a particular field to be valid in all contexts. For example in developing a chemical plant operation, the chemist, the engineer and the economist will certainly be basing their considerations from different grounds. The chemist may want to design a process that maximized the yield of the product. The economist, perhaps who knows nothing about chemistry, could punch in the numbers and realize that such a process would be too costly to be sustainable. In this hypothetical example, had the chemist not be willing to accept any critical judgement from the economist, not an expert in chemistry whatsoever, the chemical plant may never be built because no investor would want to partake in a project with no profit in sight.
Additionally, it is often those who haven't been 'overexposed' to a certain school of thought for too long who can provide the most innovative insights. The development of behavioral economics partially stems from pschycologists' criticism that nobody truly behave the way the classical economists pictured the "perfect rational" person does. The acceptance of this idea from outside of the economy realm and the combination lead to the birth of behavioral economics, recently acknowlodged to be an impactful topic by a Nobel Prize.
To sum up, while it is the case that experts are usually in more advantageous positions to provide critical judgement, those that come from people outside of the field should certainly not be ignored. In fact, it is often the acceptance and incorporation of the judgement from a different perspective that leads to development and innovations.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 13, column 37, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: haven't
... Additionally, it is often those who havent been overexposed to a certain school of...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, however, if, may, nonetheless, so, well, while, for example, in fact, such as, as well as, it is true, to sum up, in the first place
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 26.0 19.5258426966 133% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.4196629213 105% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 14.8657303371 61% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 11.3162921348 133% => OK
Pronoun: 35.0 33.0505617978 106% => OK
Preposition: 74.0 58.6224719101 126% => OK
Nominalization: 20.0 12.9106741573 155% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2855.0 2235.4752809 128% => OK
No of words: 546.0 442.535393258 123% => OK
Chars per words: 5.22893772894 5.05705443957 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.83390555256 4.55969084622 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.01471265611 2.79657885939 108% => OK
Unique words: 280.0 215.323595506 130% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.512820512821 0.4932671777 104% => OK
syllable_count: 905.4 704.065955056 129% => 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: 11.0 4.99550561798 220% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.38483146067 160% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 20.2370786517 109% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 23.0359550562 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 57.0810826807 60.3974514979 95% => OK
Chars per sentence: 129.772727273 118.986275619 109% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.8181818182 23.4991977007 106% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.59090909091 5.21951772744 126% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 10.2758426966 127% => 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: 0.0337488379997 0.243740707755 14% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0114206395579 0.0831039109588 14% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0158339981959 0.0758088955206 21% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0245901374187 0.150359130593 16% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0180878441192 0.0667264976115 27% => 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: 15.6 14.1392134831 110% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 38.66 48.8420337079 79% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 12.1743820225 113% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.35 12.1639044944 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.85 8.38706741573 106% => OK
difficult_words: 139.0 100.480337079 138% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 11.8971910112 97% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.2143820225 103% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 16.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.