"No field of study can advance significantly unless outsiders bring their knowledge and experience to that field of study."
Can a particular field of study thrive, if the researchers who study that field only study the aspects related to that particular discipline and ignore all other notions? Certainly not in today’s world. From time to time, this generation has noticed that to further advance in one field, we are often required to know the pre-requisite that might be related to some other field mainly because of two aspects, i.e., multi-disciplinary subjects and intensive derivation.
First of all, one interest might be a resultant of two or more subjects, which is popularly known as multi-disciplinary fields. The term alone suggests that people from different areas of interest are brought together to create a new field, which also helps in the advancement of the previous fields involved. For example, the robotic industry was only introduced after the expertise of mechanical, electronic, and computer science engineers were put forward on one table. The mechanical engineers were required to work with electronic engineers to correctly identify the metals involved and the computer science engineers were made to understand the dynamics of the robot, to create a software good enough to make the utilities of the robot, functional. In this case, the knowledge of outsiders didn’t only help create a new area of expertise but also helped the industries involved to advance much more significantly than they could have if they were left to grow independently.
Furthermore, the apprehensible formulas might have come from intensive derivation made in another field. To further elaborate, let’s take the invention of the aircraft industry. To make aviation a successful project, the engineers involved in the manufacturing of aircraft were required to take the help of keynotes of physicists involved in the field of aerodynamics. Not only, these key notes from another field helped in the advancement of the aircraft industry, they saved the engineers the hassle of deriving such intensive equations without understanding every aspect of aerodynamics. The same phenomenon could be seen in other areas such as weather prediction, which involves a combination of physics, machine learning, and mathematics.
To conclude, unless the research field is bound to only dig deeper with exceptional time constraints, most fields require knowledge of outsiders to advance significantly in their own aspects and hence the speaker here stands corrected.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, furthermore, hence, if, so, for example, such as, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 19.5258426966 67% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 12.4196629213 48% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 14.8657303371 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 9.0 11.3162921348 80% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 13.0 33.0505617978 39% => OK
Preposition: 60.0 58.6224719101 102% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 12.9106741573 108% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2071.0 2235.4752809 93% => OK
No of words: 379.0 442.535393258 86% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.46437994723 5.05705443957 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.41224685777 4.55969084622 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.09171785698 2.79657885939 111% => OK
Unique words: 201.0 215.323595506 93% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.530343007916 0.4932671777 108% => OK
syllable_count: 655.2 704.065955056 93% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 6.24550561798 64% => OK
Article: 7.0 4.99550561798 140% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.77640449438 113% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.38483146067 137% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 20.2370786517 69% => 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: 27.0 23.0359550562 117% => OK
Sentence length SD: 68.8652929379 60.3974514979 114% => OK
Chars per sentence: 147.928571429 118.986275619 124% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.0714285714 23.4991977007 115% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.71428571429 5.21951772744 109% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 7.80617977528 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 10.2758426966 78% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 5.13820224719 19% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.83258426966 103% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.26938585218 0.243740707755 111% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0836653790854 0.0831039109588 101% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.101735162628 0.0758088955206 134% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.184631628339 0.150359130593 123% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0964903293562 0.0667264976115 145% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.8 14.1392134831 126% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 35.61 48.8420337079 73% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.0 12.1743820225 123% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.68 12.1639044944 121% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.93 8.38706741573 106% => OK
difficult_words: 95.0 100.480337079 95% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 11.8971910112 97% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.8 11.2143820225 114% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.7820224719 127% => 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: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.