"As we acquire more knowledge, things do not become more comprehensible, but more complex and more mysterious."
Do things become more comprehensible instead of becoming more complex and more mysterious through more knowledge we acquire, as the speaker asserts? It is tempting to agree with the proposition, but further reflection reveals that as we gain more knowledge things actually become more complex and more mysterious than previously thought. There is too many evidences to illustrate my viewpoint.
To support my viewpoint one need look no further than the areas of physics. Until up to the end of the 19th century, the classical physics have achieved an outstanding accomplishment, by which people think they made everything in the world around us simple and comprehensible. However, With Einstein's invention of theory of relativity to begin with, our knowledge of physics which advanced so rapidly for the next hundred years broke through most restrains existing in 19th century. Few would disagree, for instance, that Einstein's theory of relativity makes things more complex and mysterious, for most us are hard-pressed to imagine the flexible nature of the time and space, as well as imagine that how light change its direction of speed near the sun.
Another striking example that illustrates my viewpoint involves the area of atomic and particle physics, which also develop rapidly at the beginning of the 20th century. Our naked human eyes can not see the smaller unites which compose matters, of course. Few would disagree that things what we see are simple and comprehensible. Then atomic physics tell us all these matters are comprised of atoms, which are in turn comprised of protons, neutrons, and electrons. Later scientist discovered an even more fundamentally unites which is called the quark, asserting that all protons and neutrons are comprised of quarks. We can easily see that things become so complex and mysterious-- even need not refer the complex natures of these particles.
While so many theories are invented in order to comprehend the nature the things in the world, we find the inconsistency among them. For example, Theory of relativity and quantum mechanics are both one of the most important theories discovered in 20th century, but they have their own trouble when it comes to the area of each other. Recently, a new string theory developed to reconcile the discrepancy between them, which also tried to find out which are really the most fundamental particles. Nobody would think this new theory would made things simpler and more comprehensible, when it comes to the structure of the theory itself. For instance, it calls for ten dimensions-- with seven more dimensions added to the three ones which we are familiar with. Even physical scientists are hard-pressed to imaging this strange nature. Thus the developing of more and more knowledge make things more and more complex and more and more mysterious.
In the final analysis, it is tempting to agree with the speaker's assertion; however, further reflection of many instances in scientific areas reveals that things are becoming more complex as the more knowledge advances. Thus, the speaker's contention is fundamentally incorrect.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 537, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[1]
Message: The verb 'would' requires the base form of the verb: 'make'
Suggestion: make
...obody would think this new theory would made things simpler and more comprehensible,...
^^^^
Line 7, column 832, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
...pressed to imaging this strange nature. Thus the developing of more and more knowled...
^^^^
Line 9, column 57, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'speakers'' or 'speaker's'?
Suggestion: speakers'; speaker's
...lysis, it is tempting to agree with the speakers assertion; however, further reflection ...
^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 231, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'speakers'' or 'speaker's'?
Suggestion: speakers'; speaker's
... the more knowledge advances. Thus, the speakers contention is fundamentally incorrect.
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, however, if, look, really, so, then, thus, well, while, for example, for instance, of course, as well as, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 19.5258426966 82% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.4196629213 64% => OK
Conjunction : 18.0 14.8657303371 121% => OK
Relative clauses : 19.0 11.3162921348 168% => OK
Pronoun: 38.0 33.0505617978 115% => OK
Preposition: 61.0 58.6224719101 104% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 12.9106741573 77% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2629.0 2235.4752809 118% => OK
No of words: 500.0 442.535393258 113% => OK
Chars per words: 5.258 5.05705443957 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.72870804502 4.55969084622 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.81334747232 2.79657885939 101% => OK
Unique words: 242.0 215.323595506 112% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.484 0.4932671777 98% => OK
syllable_count: 801.9 704.065955056 114% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 6.24550561798 128% => OK
Interrogative: 1.0 0.740449438202 135% => OK
Article: 3.0 4.99550561798 60% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 3.10617977528 161% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.77640449438 169% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.38483146067 137% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 20.2370786517 109% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 23.0359550562 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 56.7143961201 60.3974514979 94% => OK
Chars per sentence: 119.5 118.986275619 100% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.7272727273 23.4991977007 97% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.36363636364 5.21951772744 122% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 7.80617977528 51% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 10.2758426966 78% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 5.13820224719 78% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 10.0 4.83258426966 207% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.402636214454 0.243740707755 165% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.123362330582 0.0831039109588 148% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.183210192269 0.0758088955206 242% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.263993624082 0.150359130593 176% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.162578383144 0.0667264976115 244% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.7 14.1392134831 104% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 48.8420337079 101% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.1743820225 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.52 12.1639044944 111% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.61 8.38706741573 103% => OK
difficult_words: 123.0 100.480337079 122% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 11.8971910112 92% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.2143820225 96% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.7820224719 93% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 54.17 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.25 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.