No field of study can advance significantly unless outsiders bring their knowledge and experience to that field of study.
I support the assertion mentioned to some extend, as combination and coordination of different fields of study can cause more advances. Interdisciplinary projects usually cover more dimensions in order to correctly and precisely solve problems.
One of the reasons supporting the assertion is the limited knowledge in each field. It should be considered that even experts of a field might not be able to understand and solve all aspects of a special problem because specialists try to fathom a problem according to what they have gained and learned in their fields. The interference of outsiders can help them to be motivated to consider the problem from other points and expand their vision. The best example for this subject is the cooperation of physiotherapists and health education experts. A therapist usually considers only the therapy of aspects of patients and ignore the learning and psychological needs of patients. According to my experience with the entry of a health education expert in the physiotherapy environment, the percentage of patients’ motivation to recover significantly increases. This is because such a person tries to teach and treat patients calmly. In other words, physiotherapist’s knowledge about how to increase learning and improve the patients ‘morale during treatment is limited, and this gap is filled with the intervention of a health education expert who is aware of the therapeutic space of psychology.
Another example is related to selling products. It might be thought that for selling products, the knowledge of administration manger is enough, while in modern world if companies want to outdo their rivals, they have to get help from professionals who are proficient in math and programming for using models, which can predict the behaviour of customer and status of market in the future for providing necessary prerequisites.
However, the speaker overlooks that some subjects hardly advance by the information of other field. A clear example is mathematics. The results in math are used to explain the phenomenon in other disciplines. Nonetheless, no evidence or report provided shows that the mathematicians use knowledge of other studies such as chemistry and biology in order to develop math problems. Furthermore, the speaker ignores the acumen and intelligence of scientists discovered hypotheses and theories without cognition in other disciplines. Through history, pioneers in each field never expected support and corroboration from outsiders. Even, sometimes it has been shown some experts were rejected by outsiders. The Galileo is a clear instance who proved that the earth was round but he was condemned by many people whether literate or illiterate, and even they decided to execute him. In physics field, Albert Einstein, the father of relativity theory, is not caused by the aid of other fields but his deep observation about time and space. Through imaginary experiment, he set up a system and verified his idea, and he became one of the great scientists over the world.
In general, in my view the combination of different fields can help experts to resolve problems better, as most of fields are complementary each other and compensate for their weaknesses. This is what helps majors to advance. However, there are some exceptional majors that other fields cannot have influential effects on them. Also, the creativity, innovation and savvy of experts should not be ignored in solving problem.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 43, Rule ID: SOME_EXTEND[1]
Message: Did you mean 'extent' ("extent" is a noun, "extend" is a verb)?
Suggestion: extent
...support the assertion mentioned to some extend, as combination and coordination of dif...
^^^^^^
Line 3, column 112, Rule ID: MANGER_MANAGER[1]
Message: Did you mean 'administration manager'?
Suggestion: administration manager
... for selling products, the knowledge of administration manger is enough, while in modern world if com...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 108, Rule ID: MOST_SOME_OF_NNS[1]
Message: After 'most of', you should use 'the' ('most of the fields') or simply say ''most fields''.
Suggestion: most of the fields; most fields
... experts to resolve problems better, as most of fields are complementary each other and compen...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, furthermore, however, if, look, nonetheless, so, while, in general, such as, in my view, in other words
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 25.0 19.5258426966 128% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.4196629213 72% => OK
Conjunction : 27.0 14.8657303371 182% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 11.3162921348 88% => OK
Pronoun: 31.0 33.0505617978 94% => OK
Preposition: 82.0 58.6224719101 140% => OK
Nominalization: 27.0 12.9106741573 209% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2926.0 2235.4752809 131% => OK
No of words: 545.0 442.535393258 123% => OK
Chars per words: 5.36880733945 5.05705443957 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.83169070408 4.55969084622 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.10195628872 2.79657885939 111% => OK
Unique words: 291.0 215.323595506 135% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.533944954128 0.4932671777 108% => OK
syllable_count: 909.9 704.065955056 129% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 6.24550561798 112% => OK
Article: 12.0 4.99550561798 240% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 3.0 3.10617977528 97% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.77640449438 169% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.38483146067 160% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 26.0 20.2370786517 128% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 23.0359550562 87% => OK
Sentence length SD: 74.5392652969 60.3974514979 123% => OK
Chars per sentence: 112.538461538 118.986275619 95% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.9615384615 23.4991977007 89% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.38461538462 5.21951772744 84% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 7.80617977528 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 15.0 10.2758426966 146% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 5.13820224719 136% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.83258426966 83% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.228987400256 0.243740707755 94% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0523930597451 0.0831039109588 63% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0623256772302 0.0758088955206 82% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.116331300763 0.150359130593 77% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0340873388121 0.0667264976115 51% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.3 14.1392134831 101% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 42.72 48.8420337079 87% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.1743820225 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.87 12.1639044944 114% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.41 8.38706741573 112% => OK
difficult_words: 165.0 100.480337079 164% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 11.8971910112 97% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.2143820225 89% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.7820224719 119% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.