No field of study can advance significantly unless it incorporates knowledge and experience from outside 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.
Basically, I partially agree that, through corporating knowledge or experience from other fields, one field of study can advance greatly because of lots of true stories showing the success of cross-disciplines. However, we should be aware that the statement falsely implies that ALL fields of study follow this rule, while certain pure sciences, such as mathematics or physics, could also advance significantly by themselves.
Firstly, the reason that I am in favor of the statement is that there are a myriad of stories proven that when the different fields of studies cooperated, one of them did advance significantly. For instance, carbon dating implemented in archaeology. Before this methodology being introduced to archaeology, the archaeologist could only estimate the era of an ancient piece by its shape, decoration, the location where it was found or other documents. With the help of carbon dating invented by scientists, archaeologists now could quickly and accurately determine the age of the article instead of going through the lengthy, complex dating process. Other successful cooperation like using nitrogen to maintain the freshness of meat or vegetable, where chemistry and agriculture are involved, also made me believe that sometimes, a field of study can greatly advance when cooperating experts with other fields.
Although I agree with the statement, the non-exception assumption that all fields of study should follow this rule is unwarranted. For some disciplines, it can be greatly advanced even without the knowledge from other disciplines. Take gravity for example. Newton, as an outstanding physician, discovered gravity because of his thoughtful observation of a common scene, an apple falling from the tree. One other example like Thomas Edison who invented the light bulb. He made this great breakthrough because he had made experiences for thousands of times by himself and no other experts from other disciplines had been involved. As a result, incorporation between various fields of study indeed could advance each other significantly, but sometimes the experts in his or her own discipline could also make a great breakthrough alone.
In sum, I would say that significant advance for any field of study could happen either by itself or at cooperation with knowledge or experience outside its own field, even both. As numerous true stories have proven so, the statement perhaps could be rephrased based on reasonable assumptions.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 77, Rule ID: THERE_RE_MANY[3]
Message: Possible agreement error. Did you mean 'myriads'?
Suggestion: myriads
...or of the statement is that there are a myriad of stories proven that when the differe...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, however, if, so, while, for example, for instance, such as, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 19.5258426966 51% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.4196629213 105% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 14.8657303371 74% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 11.3162921348 124% => OK
Pronoun: 32.0 33.0505617978 97% => OK
Preposition: 50.0 58.6224719101 85% => OK
Nominalization: 20.0 12.9106741573 155% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2099.0 2235.4752809 94% => OK
No of words: 383.0 442.535393258 87% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.48041775457 5.05705443957 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.42384287591 4.55969084622 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.06843281595 2.79657885939 110% => OK
Unique words: 217.0 215.323595506 101% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.566579634465 0.4932671777 115% => 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: 5.0 6.24550561798 80% => OK
Article: 7.0 4.99550561798 140% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 3.10617977528 193% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.38483146067 91% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 20.2370786517 79% => 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: 23.0 23.0359550562 100% => OK
Sentence length SD: 64.3321459303 60.3974514979 107% => OK
Chars per sentence: 131.1875 118.986275619 110% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.9375 23.4991977007 102% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.125 5.21951772744 117% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 10.2758426966 127% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 0.0 5.13820224719 0% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.83258426966 62% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.250504714403 0.243740707755 103% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.085364179444 0.0831039109588 103% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0678183427387 0.0758088955206 89% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.176931970516 0.150359130593 118% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0401982110585 0.0667264976115 60% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.4 14.1392134831 116% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 39.67 48.8420337079 81% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 12.1743820225 110% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.8 12.1639044944 122% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.11 8.38706741573 109% => OK
difficult_words: 105.0 100.480337079 104% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 19.0 11.8971910112 160% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.2143820225 100% => 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.