Issue:
In any field of endeavor, it is impossible to make a significant contribution without first being strongly influenced by past achievements within 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.
I partially agree with the statement, in that this principle may well apply to certain fields, such as academia. However, contradictory examples can also be found in other fields, such as technology driven innovation, which I will illustrate more as follows.
On one hand, I would say that in a field requiring accumulation of the findings, the statement is more possible to hold true, since the significant contribution acquires its legitimacy based on the relation or conversation with past findings. For example, when conducting academic research, a famous quote is strictly followed that is “we look further when standing on the shoulders of giants. This perfectly demonstrates that most of the academic findings result from the understanding of past achievements, and the value of the research lies in the discovery of past puzzles or achievements. Indeed, it can be easily exemplified by the literature review section in the academic research. Therefore, the statement well suits in the academic field where contributions are strongly recognized when it has tight relation, in other words, strongly influenced by past achievements
However, on the other hand, if a field is relatively new, then actually not so many past achievements exist. Or a field is dominant by the disruption instead of accumulation of past achievement, then the statement will not be applicable. The technological world seeking innovation can be the best example. Like the emergence of MAC computers created by Apple was not accomplished by taking the influence of the IBM computer model. Instead, Apple invented a brand new operating system that was against the IBM model, and achieved unprecedented success. People may argue that the design of MAC is still influenced by IBM. Nonetheless, I would affirm what Apple did is to abandon the past paradigm and formulate its own version, thus, it is a disruption, which differs from the influence mentioned from the statement, normally indicates the adoption of the past traits.
To sum up, I assert that the statement has its limitations, in that it can only apply to fields appreciating accumulation of findings, like academia. However, other fields, such as the technology world, eschewing past achievement actually make significant contributions happen more easily.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 51, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...d, I would say that in a field requiring accumulation of the findings, the statem...
^^
Line 3, column 337, Rule ID: EN_UNPAIRED_BRACKETS
Message: Unpaired symbol: '”' seems to be missing
...mous quote is strictly followed that is “we look further when standing on the sho...
^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, however, if, look, may, nonetheless, so, still, then, therefore, thus, well, for example, such as, in other words, to sum up, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 19.5258426966 77% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.4196629213 81% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 14.8657303371 40% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 14.0 11.3162921348 124% => OK
Pronoun: 23.0 33.0505617978 70% => OK
Preposition: 55.0 58.6224719101 94% => OK
Nominalization: 24.0 12.9106741573 186% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1945.0 2235.4752809 87% => OK
No of words: 362.0 442.535393258 82% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.3729281768 5.05705443957 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.36191444098 4.55969084622 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.14616629918 2.79657885939 113% => OK
Unique words: 195.0 215.323595506 91% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.538674033149 0.4932671777 109% => OK
syllable_count: 598.5 704.065955056 85% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 6.24550561798 112% => OK
Article: 4.0 4.99550561798 80% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 3.10617977528 97% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.77640449438 169% => OK
Preposition: 9.0 4.38483146067 205% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 20.2370786517 74% => 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: 24.0 23.0359550562 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 64.5760189406 60.3974514979 107% => OK
Chars per sentence: 129.666666667 118.986275619 109% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.1333333333 23.4991977007 103% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.9333333333 5.21951772744 209% => Less transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 10.2758426966 107% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 5.13820224719 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.83258426966 21% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.207008964379 0.243740707755 85% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0635210514258 0.0831039109588 76% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0490183984243 0.0758088955206 65% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.121156121918 0.150359130593 81% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0262550463322 0.0667264976115 39% => 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: 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: 14.16 12.1639044944 116% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.32 8.38706741573 111% => OK
difficult_words: 103.0 100.480337079 103% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.0 11.8971910112 126% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.2143820225 103% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => 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.