The main reason we should study history is to ensure that we do not repeat the mistakes of the past.
People have long held history as a premium source for advice and instruction, as most present events have precedents in history, which means that we can learn from those past events to avoid future mistakes. People look at history so that they do not repeat their predecessor’s mistakes. Though it is true that history have certain advisory values, it should do not dictates what we do, as no two events are exactly the same, and we need to adapt to handle the present events appropriately.
Take the historical use of DDT and the application of nuclear power today for example. History does tend to repeat itself. When DDT was first synthesized in the laboratory, people where thrilled by its power as a pesticide, and rushed to apply it. It wasn’t till much later that people realized it negative impact on the environment, and the adverse effect was already widespread and irreversible. As for nuclear power, people first realized the power offered by nuclear physics during the second world war, and when the war ended, people saw nuclear power plants as a peaceful and beneficial way of harnessing this new-found power, and power plants are built. It wasn’t until the accident at Chernobyl that people truly realized the potential dangers those power plants posed. In both cases, people became overwhelmed by the bright prospects new technology promised, and overlooked their potential dangers. The two events are near mirror images of each other. Indeed, one could easily argue that had people remembered the problem with DDT, and thought more carefully before they built the nuclear power plants, the disasters would not have happened. History does have valuable lessons to offer, and could help prevent us from repeating past mistakes.
However, though history can show us the past mistakes and potentially help us avoid past mistakes, it is can not tell us what to do, as time is always changing, and no two events in history is exactly the same. Take another look at the example mentioned earlier, the use of DDT and the building of nuclear power plants. Would it have been better if people thought about the horrendous disaster that could results from accidents and did not build the power plants? Maybe not. The population was exploding, and energy was on short supply. If people had not build the nuclear power plants, some other energy source would have to be used. At that time all the other power source available are non-renewable, and have detrimental effects on the environment and the pollution would have negative impacts on all aspects of the society. In addition to this, there is also the cold war raging on. These conditions are very different from the condition under which the decision to use DDT is made, and thus simply treating nuclear power plants as a second DDT will be imprudent. The complexity of real world and the uniqueness of each even dictates that the past shall not be used as a guide to the present. History can help us, but can never tell us what to do.
In conclusion, history is a good source of useful advises, but because of the complexity of real world, it can never tell us exactly what to do. Therefore, people should not approach history hoping to use it as a guide to preventing repeated failure, but rather, use it to become wiser so that they can make better decisions themselves.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 372, Rule ID: DONT_NEEDS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'dictate'?
Suggestion: dictate
...rtain advisory values, it should do not dictates what we do, as no two events are exactl...
^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 304, Rule ID: IT_VBZ[1]
Message: Did you mean 'negatives'?
Suggestion: negatives
...till much later that people realized it negative impact on the environment, and the adve...
^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 1012, Rule ID: HAD_VBP[1]
Message: Possible agreement error -- use past participle here: 'peopled'.
Suggestion: peopled
...Indeed, one could easily argue that had people remembered the problem with DDT, and th...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 406, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[2]
Message: The verb 'could' requires the base form of the verb: 'result'
Suggestion: result
...bout the horrendous disaster that could results from accidents and did not build the po...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 556, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Possible agreement error -- use past participle here: 'builded', 'built'.
Suggestion: builded; built
... was on short supply. If people had not build the nuclear power plants, some other en...
^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'but', 'first', 'however', 'if', 'look', 'may', 'second', 'so', 'therefore', 'thus', 'as for', 'for example', 'in addition', 'in conclusion', 'it is true']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.213063763608 0.240241500013 89% => OK
Verbs: 0.171073094868 0.157235817809 109% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0933125972006 0.0880659088768 106% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0575427682737 0.0497285424764 116% => OK
Pronouns: 0.045101088647 0.0444667217837 101% => OK
Prepositions: 0.105754276827 0.12292977631 86% => OK
Participles: 0.0311041990669 0.0406280797675 77% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.56320292478 2.79330140395 92% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0248833592535 0.030933414821 80% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.0016655270985 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.0917573872473 0.0997080785238 92% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0279937791602 0.0249443105267 112% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0155520995334 0.0148568991511 105% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 3359.0 2732.02544248 123% => OK
No of words: 570.0 452.878318584 126% => OK
Chars per words: 5.89298245614 6.0361032391 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.88617158649 4.58838876751 106% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.357894736842 0.366273622748 98% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.242105263158 0.280924506359 86% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.152631578947 0.200843997647 76% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.101754385965 0.132149295362 77% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.56320292478 2.79330140395 92% => OK
Unique words: 267.0 219.290929204 122% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.468421052632 0.48968727796 96% => OK
Word variations: 56.2087990594 55.4138127331 101% => OK
How many sentences: 26.0 20.6194690265 126% => OK
Sentence length: 21.9230769231 23.380412469 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 62.418135735 59.4972553346 105% => OK
Chars per sentence: 129.192307692 141.124799967 92% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.9230769231 23.380412469 94% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.615384615385 0.674092028746 91% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.94800884956 81% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 5.21349557522 96% => OK
Readability: 46.1336032389 51.4728631049 90% => OK
Elegance: 1.27840909091 1.64882698954 78% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.456418164466 0.391690518653 117% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.114209785825 0.123202303941 93% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.10050500034 0.077325440228 130% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.473057097782 0.547984918172 86% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.179927189483 0.149214159877 121% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.171686348281 0.161403998019 106% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0806621259293 0.0892212321368 90% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.424748130374 0.385218514788 110% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.155319222707 0.0692045440612 224% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.324179661114 0.275328986314 118% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0733665633184 0.0653680567796 112% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 10.4325221239 86% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 5.30420353982 189% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.88274336283 143% => OK
Positive topic words: 8.0 7.22455752212 111% => OK
Negative topic words: 9.0 3.66592920354 246% => OK
Neutral topic words: 4.0 2.70907079646 148% => OK
Total topic words: 21.0 13.5995575221 154% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Minimum three arguments wanted.
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.