Issue:
Many important discoveries or creations are accidental: it is usually while seeking the answer to one question that we come across the answer to another.
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.
At first glance, I may disagree with the prompt since it is common to find examples to support that lots of influential creations are made from strict and diligent work from one single path without any accident at all. However, under the info-tech age, with blurred boundaries of different subjects, it makes accidental discoveries more often in that the collaboration of multiple subjects are always required to tackle the complicated challenges we face now. Therefore, I would partially agree with the prompt and claim that the reality is that there are multiple ways to achieve new discoveries, and the accidental ways are as important as the traditional ways to find creative answers
On one hand, numerous traditional discoveries are formed chronically, which means most of the answers are found from one single subject and may not relate to any other field’s knowledge. For example, when Newton achieved his famous finding on gravity, he had already put substantial effort in forming the formula. Though the apple tree may stimulate him in finding the critical part of the answer, it is still true that he testified his own theory by contentious study and research on his field. Hence, it is evident that discoveries come without accident, but from diligent research of certain fields. The sequential discoveries based on Newton’s theory also justify this traditional research path.
On the other hand, the accidental path to come across answers is also common, especially under the modern society with the advancement of technology. The growth of info-tech makes the connection of knowledge from diverse fields possible and accessible, which in turn changes the dynamics of research and cross-field collaboration. For example, the medicine that the farmer adds into pork to lose the fat actually comes from the discovery of the medicine that was originally planned to be used for curing lung-related issues. These types of examples are easier to find when most of the modern issues, such as global warming, are interconnected with multiple subjects, like environmental, oceanic, and air pollution study.
In conclusion, I partially agree with the prompt in that the traditional path to find answers still has its role in the history of new discoveries. However, the accidental way to impactful discoveries are equally, if not more, important under the modern era when most of the global issues are tied together.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 688, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...raditional ways to find creative answers On one hand, numerous traditional discov...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 701, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...justify this traditional research path. On the other hand, the accidental path t...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 722, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ntal, oceanic, and air pollution study. In conclusion, I partially agree with th...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, first, hence, however, if, may, so, still, therefore, for example, in conclusion, such as, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 19.5258426966 87% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 12.4196629213 32% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 14.8657303371 61% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 11.3162921348 124% => OK
Pronoun: 26.0 33.0505617978 79% => OK
Preposition: 64.0 58.6224719101 109% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 12.9106741573 39% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2046.0 2235.4752809 92% => OK
No of words: 389.0 442.535393258 88% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.25964010283 5.05705443957 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.44106776838 4.55969084622 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.85535730477 2.79657885939 102% => OK
Unique words: 207.0 215.323595506 96% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.532133676093 0.4932671777 108% => OK
syllable_count: 633.6 704.065955056 90% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 6.24550561798 128% => OK
Article: 5.0 4.99550561798 100% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 3.10617977528 97% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.77640449438 169% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.38483146067 160% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 20.2370786517 64% => 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: 29.0 23.0359550562 126% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 78.5675754069 60.3974514979 130% => OK
Chars per sentence: 157.384615385 118.986275619 132% => OK
Words per sentence: 29.9230769231 23.4991977007 127% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.92307692308 5.21951772744 190% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 7.80617977528 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 10.2758426966 88% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 5.13820224719 39% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.83258426966 41% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.198374198037 0.243740707755 81% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0684205680207 0.0831039109588 82% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0498478700225 0.0758088955206 66% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.125620576844 0.150359130593 84% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0136658119302 0.0667264976115 20% => 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: 18.3 14.1392134831 129% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 42.04 48.8420337079 86% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.6 12.1743820225 120% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.82 12.1639044944 114% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.05 8.38706741573 108% => OK
difficult_words: 98.0 100.480337079 98% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 19.0 11.8971910112 160% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.6 11.2143820225 121% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.7820224719 119% => 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: 62.5 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.75 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.