"No field of study can advance significantly unless outsiders bring their knowledge and
experience to that field of study."
I strongly agree with the assertion that significant advances in knowledge require expertise
from various fields. The world around us presents a seamless web of physical and
anthropogenic forces, which interact in ways that can be understood only in the context of a
variety of disciplines. Two examples that aptly illustrate this point involve the fields of cultural
anthropology and astronomy.
Consider how a cultural anthropologist's knowledge about an ancient civilization is
enhanced not only by the expertise of the archeologist--who unearths the evidence--but
ultimately by the expertise of biochemists, geologists, linguists, and even astronomers. By
analyzing the hair, nails, blood and bones of mummified bodies, biochemists and forensic
scientists can determine the life expectancy, general well-being, and common causes of death
of the population. These experts can also ensure the proper preservation of evidence found at
the archeological site. A geologist can help identify the source and age of the materials used
for tools, weapons, and structures--thereby enabling the anthropologist to extrapolate about
the civilization's economy, trades and work habits, life styles, extent of travel and mobility, and
so forth. Linguists are needed to interpret hieroglyphics and extrapolate from found fragments
of writings. And an astronomer can help explain the layout of an ancient city as well as the
design, structure and position of monuments, tombs, and temples--since ancients often looked
to the stars for guidance in building cities and structures.
An even more striking example of how expertise in diverse fields is needed to advance
knowledge involves the area of astronomy and space exploration. Significant advancements in
our knowledge of the solar system and the universe require increasingly keen tools for
observation and measurement. Telescope technology and the measurement of celestial
distances, masses, volumes, and so forth, are the domain of astrophysicists.
These advances also require increasingly sophisticated means of exploration. Manned and
unmanned exploratory probes are designed by mechanical, electrical, and computer
engineers. And to build and enable these technologies requires the acumen and savvy of
business leaders, managers, and politicians. Even diplomats might play a role--insofar as
major space projects require intemafional cooperative efforts among the world's scientists and
governments. And ultimately it is our philosophers whose expertise helps provide meaning to
what we learn about our universe.
In sum, no area ofinteUectual inquiry operates in a vacuum. Because the sciences are
inextricably related, to advance our knowledge in any one area we must understand the
interplay among them all. Moreover, it is our non-scienfists who make possible the science,
4
and who bring meaning to what we learn from it.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 6, column 25, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'anthropologists'' or 'anthropologist's'?
Suggestion: anthropologists'; anthropologist's
...and astronomy. Consider how a cultural anthropologists knowledge about an ancient civilization...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 14, column 5, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'civilizations'' or 'civilization's'?
Suggestion: civilizations'; civilization's
...nthropologist to extrapolate about the civilizations economy, trades and work habits, life s...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, if, look, moreover, so, well, as well as
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: 7.0 12.4196629213 56% => OK
Conjunction : 31.0 14.8657303371 209% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 8.0 11.3162921348 71% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 21.0 33.0505617978 64% => OK
Preposition: 55.0 58.6224719101 94% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 12.9106741573 124% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2510.0 2235.4752809 112% => OK
No of words: 425.0 442.535393258 96% => OK
Chars per words: 5.90588235294 5.05705443957 117% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.54043259262 4.55969084622 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.42054529334 2.79657885939 122% => OK
Unique words: 251.0 215.323595506 117% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.590588235294 0.4932671777 120% => OK
syllable_count: 775.8 704.065955056 110% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.59117977528 113% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 6.24550561798 80% => OK
Article: 5.0 4.99550561798 100% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 3.10617977528 32% => OK
Conjunction: 12.0 1.77640449438 676% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 7.0 4.38483146067 160% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 20.2370786517 99% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 23.0359550562 91% => OK
Sentence length SD: 57.6413696923 60.3974514979 95% => OK
Chars per sentence: 125.5 118.986275619 105% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.25 23.4991977007 90% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.55 5.21951772744 49% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 34.0 4.97078651685 684% => Less paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 10.2758426966 78% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 5.13820224719 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 9.0 4.83258426966 186% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.130932564403 0.243740707755 54% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0364831026929 0.0831039109588 44% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.03734034814 0.0758088955206 49% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0265568425755 0.150359130593 18% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0382384533441 0.0667264976115 57% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.0 14.1392134831 120% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 33.24 48.8420337079 68% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 12.1743820225 113% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 17.0 12.1639044944 140% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.44 8.38706741573 124% => OK
difficult_words: 155.0 100.480337079 154% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.5 11.8971910112 105% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.2143820225 93% => OK
text_standard: 17.0 11.7820224719 144% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Maximum six paragraphs wanted.
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.