People who are the most deeply committed to an idea or policy are also the most critical of it.
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.
The prompt urges the idea that people who are the most deeply associated with a matter - are the most critical of it. For some obvious reasons I would like to be "mostly agree" of the consent and hereby obliged to provide necessary elaboration of certain points.
To begin with - before coming to any judgement we have to be clear of the idea of being "critical". The word "critical" might sound to be a bit harsh or reflect negative views on a matter. However, to be critical is always not being passimistic of a subject. A person can be critical of a matter even though he keeps much trust in it. In broader view - that being critical of a decision or of a matter means - to preview all the factors associated with the idea and then come to any conclusion by examining those factors. The conclusion can be proponent or might be opponent of the subjective matter. However, in this case the idea is vogue. That is to say the prompt has not cleared where it stands given the contrast of term. If it is the second fact - being negative over an idea for a person who is deeply connected towards the idea, then the consent might hold true. It might be the norm of some people who are accustomed to a trait will always give negative review of it. For example - a person who is very fond of sky diving might accept the risk associated with it. It is such a dangerous recreation that might cause him hs life. Yes he does not afraid from being taken over by the pleasure of the diving. The underlie question is - will it be possible for a person to be critical of his proclitivity as well as continuing that at a time? Probably yes as we can see from the instance.
Another prospect is - what if the prompts hopes on the first part, that is to say - the concentrated person would likely to come to the proponent of an idea. It is very much tantamount to the case of analyzing. Normally what happens is that - people with special interest towards a certain thing, devote significant amount of their time becsasue of satiating their curiosity. As a result, they dig deeper and deeper into the subjects and analyze their interest from different perspectives. For example - the world renowned scientists who are quite famous in their own fields, are unlikely to draw a conclusion undisputedly. Like, in the case of using a nuclear weapon - a nuclear scientist is unlikely draw a undisputed conclusion, such as - "yes it will not harm any species. This is the best one available to human resources". He knows the devastating effect of the nuclear weapon and that is why he will present both the sides of the nuclear weapon into contention, although he has been specialized for the nuclear science. Evident? Yes it is.
Apart from the specific reasons - it might not be always the case the specialized people will definitely look their matter in the previously mentioned way. As it can be seen from the examples that - being critical of a fact that is quite close to ones cerebral, will require a great deal of neutrality. That is to say - not many people can comment or disclose the negative sides and the limitations of their specialized fields or ideas. Might it be becasue of their self advantages or self-righteousness or for serving other reasons. But a unbiased person will not likely to hide any limitations of his idea only to gain prentention over other or to serve any purpose.
So, looking at the mentioned points it can be safely deduced that - people, specialized in a certain field can be the severe critics of their own subject.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 1042, Rule ID: SKY_DIVING[1]
Message: Did you mean 'skydiving'?
Suggestion: skydiving
... example - a person who is very fond of sky diving might accept the risk associated with i...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 1235, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
...ken over by the pleasure of the diving. The underlie question is - will it be possible for a...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 708, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'an' instead of 'a' if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g. 'an article', 'an hour'
Suggestion: an
... - a nuclear scientist is unlikely draw a undisputed conclusion, such as - '...
^
Line 7, column 248, Rule ID: ONES[1]
Message: Did you mean 'one's'?
Suggestion: one's
...itical of a fact that is quite close to ones cerebral, will require a great deal of ...
^^^^
Line 7, column 539, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'an' instead of 'a' if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g. 'an article', 'an hour'
Suggestion: an
...sness or for serving other reasons. But a unbiased person will not likely to hide...
^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, if, look, second, so, then, well, apart from, for example, such as, as a result, as well as, to begin with, that is to say
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 45.0 19.5258426966 230% => Less to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 24.0 12.4196629213 193% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 14.8657303371 101% => OK
Relative clauses : 18.0 11.3162921348 159% => OK
Pronoun: 51.0 33.0505617978 154% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 82.0 58.6224719101 140% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 12.9106741573 70% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2939.0 2235.4752809 131% => OK
No of words: 627.0 442.535393258 142% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.68740031898 5.05705443957 93% => OK
Fourth root words length: 5.00399520894 4.55969084622 110% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.84158054149 2.79657885939 102% => OK
Unique words: 273.0 215.323595506 127% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.435406698565 0.4932671777 88% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 926.1 704.065955056 132% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59117977528 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 6.24550561798 144% => OK
Article: 5.0 4.99550561798 100% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 3.10617977528 129% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.38483146067 160% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 32.0 20.2370786517 158% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 23.0359550562 82% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 45.1112773456 60.3974514979 75% => OK
Chars per sentence: 91.84375 118.986275619 77% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.59375 23.4991977007 83% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.46875 5.21951772744 86% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 7.80617977528 64% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 18.0 10.2758426966 175% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 5.13820224719 195% => 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: 0.110508831259 0.243740707755 45% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.033844306072 0.0831039109588 41% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0502836520357 0.0758088955206 66% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0828757193085 0.150359130593 55% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.076916406003 0.0667264976115 115% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.5 14.1392134831 74% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 60.65 48.8420337079 124% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 12.1743820225 78% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 9.92 12.1639044944 82% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.55 8.38706741573 90% => OK
difficult_words: 118.0 100.480337079 117% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 11.8971910112 71% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.2143820225 86% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.7820224719 85% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.