Much of the information that people assume is “factual” actually turns out to be inaccurate. Thus, any piece of information referred to as a “fact” should be mistrusted since it may well be proven false in the future.
Human society usually glut with verisimilar or even fake information, many superficially real things turn out to be false. The speaker asserts that we should mistrust any information to be claimed as fact. In my view, this assertion is overly extreme, cannot be applied to all of situations.
I concede that, there are many so called “true” information is deliberate to misguide people. This can happen in a range of circumstances our society. In the political campaign, politician may adulterate some merits in their resumes to gain their own personal prestige. In the environment of social interaction, when a person talking in their experiences to others, they may boast their story to make the conversation more fruitful and interesting. Understandably, it is human’s nature to aggrandize their words to achieve specific purposes.
However, we cannot ignore some information is based on concrete ground and has been verified again and again. The most obvious example is scientific research. For a certified scientific theory, it was investigated by numerous peers in related field falsehood and inaccuracy will be obviated in this procedure. And, for the experimental data published in academic field, it also be substantiate by experts and ensure their reliability and repeatability. Therefore, these data can hardly called inaccurate and, except some unwitting subtle fault, it has little probability to be overturned.
Admittedly, in some conditions, a concrete theory can be proved to be inaccurate in the future. It is not a anonmaly in the field of scientific research. While the modification of a theory can occur in the academic field, this situation cannot be assigned to falsehood. For example, Einstein’s general relativity supersedes Newtons’s law for describing the interaction of gigantic objects in the universe; and, classical mechanic is modified by quantum mechanics for predicting minuscule particles. In strict way, one can say the old theory is proven to be inaccurate, nevertheless, the new theory broadens the scope of the old theory but not indicate that the old one is false. Actually, new theory just complements the old one.
To sum up, undeniably, human beings have inclination to knead or aggrandize the information they provide to reach their goal. However, there are still many things are withstanding and can weather through examination.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 379, Rule ID: IT_VBZ[1]
Message: Did you mean 'is'?
Suggestion: is
...ta published in academic field, it also be substantiate by experts and ensure thei...
^^
Line 7, column 107, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'an' instead of 'a' if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g. 'an article', 'an hour'
Suggestion: an
... be inaccurate in the future. It is not a anonmaly in the field of scientific res...
^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, however, if, may, nevertheless, so, still, therefore, while, for example, in my view, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 24.0 19.5258426966 123% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.4196629213 105% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 14.8657303371 74% => OK
Relative clauses : 4.0 11.3162921348 35% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 27.0 33.0505617978 82% => OK
Preposition: 47.0 58.6224719101 80% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 12.9106741573 108% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2024.0 2235.4752809 91% => OK
No of words: 372.0 442.535393258 84% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.44086021505 5.05705443957 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.39173103935 4.55969084622 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.17124101398 2.79657885939 113% => OK
Unique words: 220.0 215.323595506 102% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.591397849462 0.4932671777 120% => OK
syllable_count: 648.0 704.065955056 92% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 12.0 6.24550561798 192% => OK
Article: 4.0 4.99550561798 80% => OK
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: 21.0 20.2370786517 104% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 23.0359550562 74% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 45.5080666144 60.3974514979 75% => OK
Chars per sentence: 96.380952381 118.986275619 81% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.7142857143 23.4991977007 75% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.52380952381 5.21951772744 106% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 10.2758426966 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 5.13820224719 39% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 14.0 4.83258426966 290% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.231070505652 0.243740707755 95% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0668107558762 0.0831039109588 80% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0806804305878 0.0758088955206 106% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.131898136963 0.150359130593 88% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.080227537266 0.0667264976115 120% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.0 14.1392134831 92% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 45.76 48.8420337079 94% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.1743820225 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.98 12.1639044944 115% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.7 8.38706741573 116% => OK
difficult_words: 123.0 100.480337079 122% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 11.8971910112 67% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 11.2143820225 78% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => 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.