Understanding the past is of little use to those in current positions of leadership.
This statement is fundamentally flawed. It suggests that people in positions of leadership should ignore the most vast source of experience that a person in such a position can get. Such an approach would lead to many mistakes that could otherwise be avoided, and stop any progress from happening in the structure of our societies.
History is a goldmine of insight that any leader can learn from. Due to the sheer amount of time humanity existed, most problems that one might encounter already happened before, knowing how these situations played out in the past would be extremely helpful in deciding the path forward. It would be inefficient to try to approach such problems without considering past experiences.
In many circumstances modern issues mirror problems of the past, in that case approaching them as something unique and never before encountered would like likely lead to the same outcomes as in history, since in both cases people worked with the same mindset. Knowing history, and applying that knowledge, would allow to avoid the same mistakes, and lead to a better conclusion.
Finally, a disregard for history stops our societies from making progress, if we never look back, our way of thinking would never improve, and we will get stuck going in circles and never even realising that. We would leave our decision making to be determined by our current situation and never look at our broader path through time, and therefore, will never progress much in the long run.
To conclude, history is of utmost importance to humanity, especially it's leaders. A lack of understanding about the past would be very unproductive both in the short run, and in the further future.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 366, Rule ID: PAST_EXPERIENCE_MEMORY[1]
Message: Use simply 'experiences'.
Suggestion: experiences
...roach such problems without considering past experiences. In many circumstances modern issu...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 319, Rule ID: ALLOW_TO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'avoiding'? Or maybe you should add a pronoun? In active voice, 'allow' + 'to' takes an object, usually a pronoun.
Suggestion: avoiding
...nd applying that knowledge, would allow to avoid the same mistakes, and lead to a better...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, if, look, so, therefore
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 19.5258426966 41% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.4196629213 121% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 14.8657303371 61% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 11.3162921348 71% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 23.0 33.0505617978 70% => OK
Preposition: 51.0 58.6224719101 87% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 12.9106741573 39% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1428.0 2235.4752809 64% => OK
No of words: 280.0 442.535393258 63% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.1 5.05705443957 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.09062348924 4.55969084622 90% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.70577613446 2.79657885939 97% => OK
Unique words: 166.0 215.323595506 77% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.592857142857 0.4932671777 120% => OK
syllable_count: 431.1 704.065955056 61% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59117977528 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 6.24550561798 80% => OK
Article: 2.0 4.99550561798 40% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 6.0 1.77640449438 338% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 4.38483146067 91% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 20.2370786517 59% => 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: 23.0 23.0359550562 100% => OK
Sentence length SD: 64.5708052365 60.3974514979 107% => OK
Chars per sentence: 119.0 118.986275619 100% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.3333333333 23.4991977007 99% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.66666666667 5.21951772744 51% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 10.2758426966 29% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 5.13820224719 136% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.83258426966 41% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0924987807366 0.243740707755 38% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0346613164656 0.0831039109588 42% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0473107349399 0.0758088955206 62% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0538599665811 0.150359130593 36% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0303193095462 0.0667264976115 45% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.3 14.1392134831 101% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 56.59 48.8420337079 116% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.1743820225 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.6 12.1639044944 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.89 8.38706741573 106% => OK
difficult_words: 73.0 100.480337079 73% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 11.8971910112 88% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.2143820225 100% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.7820224719 93% => 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.