Over the course of evolution, mankind have aggregated the knowledge from various fields to enhance the society we live in. The experience of many fields have contributed to the develpment of various facilities that we enjoy today. The prompt claims that in order for a field of study to advance significantly, it needs to incorporate the experiences and knowledge of the outside field. I argree with the above argument for two main reasons, which I will elucidate below. But, I do concede that sometimes outside experiences and knowledge can propel the studies in the wrong direction.
To begin, it is important to acknowldege the interlink between different studies and to understand the dependence of studies on each other. Like for eg., physics is largely depended on the knowlegde of mathemathics. Without the experiences and knowledge of the latter, the former would not even had started. The field of aviation or automobiles depend upon chemical engineering to understand the principle and working of internal combustion engines, and on aerodynamics to make the vehicles stable. Likely other fields like robotics automations, designing, etc. also play an important part in the production of such vehicles. Thus, it is fair to conclude that the fields are interconnected and are depended upon each other.
Secondly, it will be difficult for a field to excel without the experiences and knowledge from the field outside. Many a times at appropriate instances historians turns to psychology to explain a certain events. Many instances in the history would have remained ambigious without the help of psychology. The field of neuroscience depends on the field of psychology and biology to explain the working of neurons in the brain. Without the knowledge from other fields, many such fields will become stagnate and not produce any beneficial results. Outside knowledge often boost the development in many such fields. Hence, we can conclude that it is cruzial to incorporate the knowledge and experiences from outside field.
However, I do believe that if the principles of one field are blindly applied on the other, it can result in no development or even worse, negative consequences. Also, it can become difficult to manage knowledge from multiple fields together. With ample of care, such issues can be mitigated. Like for eg., with proper consideration the dangerous nuclear fission reaction is helping human society to solve its energy crisis problem. Thus, I believe that as each coin have two sides, the prompt's claim also have two faces. Such that one face can cause serious problem, while the other can help to solve it.
In conclusion, we can say that the prompt's claim that knowledge and experiences from outside field is necessary for the advancement of the field mostly holds water.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 42, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
...o begin, it is important to acknowldege the interlink between different studies and to unders...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 296, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[3]
Message: The verb 'would' requires base form of the verb: 'have'
Suggestion: have
...f the latter, the former would not even had started. The field of aviation or autom...
^^^
Line 5, column 120, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[1]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'a time' or simply 'times'?
Suggestion: a time; times
... knowledge from the field outside. Many a times at appropriate instances historians tur...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 205, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[2]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'event'?
Suggestion: event
...urns to psychology to explain a certain events. Many instances in the history would ha...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, hence, however, if, second, secondly, so, thus, while, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 19.5258426966 56% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.4196629213 105% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 14.8657303371 94% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 11.3162921348 97% => OK
Pronoun: 28.0 33.0505617978 85% => OK
Preposition: 80.0 58.6224719101 136% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 12.9106741573 132% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2361.0 2235.4752809 106% => OK
No of words: 453.0 442.535393258 102% => OK
Chars per words: 5.2119205298 5.05705443957 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.61343653406 4.55969084622 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.86019803753 2.79657885939 102% => OK
Unique words: 216.0 215.323595506 100% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.476821192053 0.4932671777 97% => OK
syllable_count: 740.7 704.065955056 105% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 12.0 6.24550561798 192% => OK
Article: 6.0 4.99550561798 120% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 3.10617977528 32% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 10.0 4.38483146067 228% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 26.0 20.2370786517 128% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 23.0359550562 74% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 34.4362029121 60.3974514979 57% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 90.8076923077 118.986275619 76% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.4230769231 23.4991977007 74% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.03846153846 5.21951772744 58% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 7.80617977528 51% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 10.2758426966 117% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 5.13820224719 136% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.83258426966 145% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.322771987696 0.243740707755 132% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0964948027203 0.0831039109588 116% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0827468539326 0.0758088955206 109% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.206136561145 0.150359130593 137% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.079007897044 0.0667264976115 118% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.8 14.1392134831 83% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 54.22 48.8420337079 111% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 12.1743820225 81% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.64 12.1639044944 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.52 8.38706741573 102% => OK
difficult_words: 116.0 100.480337079 115% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 11.8971910112 76% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 11.2143820225 78% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.