The statment contends that it is better to have a broader knowledge of several academic subjects than to specialize in one specific subject. Although, some may disagree, a thorough analysis of the statement from all angles convinces me that having a broader knowledge of many subject can be more advantageous than specializing in one specific subject.
Studying many academic subject helps you get a basic understanding of how most things work in life. Whereas, specializing in one specific subject makes you aware of only that field. Having a basic understanding of many subjects will mean having better opportunities to switch jobs if one doesn't work out. However, if you have knowledge of one one specific are, you are expected to work in only that area and not any other area. For instance, if a person studies astronomy with biology, he/she has a better chance to switch careers than a person who has specialized in only mathematics.
Having a better understanding of many subjects can be exploited during times to difficulty. A concept of one subject can be applied as a solution to a diffiulty of another subject, provided one has the knowledge of other areas. For example, recently, the mayor of Baltimore applied business skills to solve governance problem in his constituency. MBWA, which loosely translates to Managing Business by Wandering Around. In this technique, owners and managers go around talking to their customers. It is a business concept applied by business owners and managers to better understand the needs and requirements of their consumers. The mayor of Baltimore, applied this concept by travelling in public transports, moving around the city, talking to the public regarding their difficulty, etc. By applying this management concept he was able to identify the needs of the public and improve the governance in his city. Had he not been aware of this concept he would have not been able to solve the problem so easily.
Although, some who disagree posit the argument that by studying many academic subjects, a person is only touching the surface of a subject and not going into the depths of it, which is required to do research in the field. Thus, they conlcude that encouraging multiple subjects rather than a specific one prohibits reseach that could lead to technological advancements in the field. The proponents of the argument are forgetting that many people like to do reseach regarding a particular field only, thus they specialize in those areas. Thus, this statement does not force everyone to study multiple subject but is rather an argument suggesting why studying multiple subjects could be better.
In conclusion, the statement rightly contends that it is better to have a better understanding of many academic subjects than to specialize in one specific subject. By doing so, they understand the basic working of many natural and real life phenomenas. It also helps them to identify a concept's applicability in some another subject.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 272, Rule ID: MANY_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun subject seems to be countable; consider using: 'many subjects'.
Suggestion: many subjects
...s me that having a broader knowledge of many subject can be more advantageous than specializ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 101, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “Whereas” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...anding of how most things work in life. Whereas, specializing in one specific subject m...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 289, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...ter opportunities to switch jobs if one doesnt work out. However, if you have knowledg...
^^^^^^
Line 3, column 340, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: one
... out. However, if you have knowledge of one one specific are, you are expected to work ...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 288, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'concepts'' or 'concept's'?
Suggestion: concepts'; concept's
...menas. It also helps them to identify a concepts applicability in some another subject.
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, however, if, may, regarding, so, thus, whereas, for example, for instance, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 15.1003584229 106% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 9.8082437276 82% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 13.8261648746 58% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 13.0 11.0286738351 118% => OK
Pronoun: 39.0 43.0788530466 91% => OK
Preposition: 75.0 52.1666666667 144% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 8.0752688172 149% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2507.0 1977.66487455 127% => OK
No of words: 487.0 407.700716846 119% => OK
Chars per words: 5.14784394251 4.8611393121 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.69766713281 4.48103885553 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.88434155951 2.67179642975 108% => OK
Unique words: 213.0 212.727598566 100% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.437371663244 0.524837075471 83% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 792.0 618.680645161 128% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.51630824373 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 9.59856630824 73% => OK
Article: 8.0 3.08781362007 259% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 3.0 3.51792114695 85% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.86738351254 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.94265232975 81% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 20.6003584229 112% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 20.1344086022 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 39.8353890788 48.9658058833 81% => OK
Chars per sentence: 109.0 100.406767564 109% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.1739130435 20.6045352989 103% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.30434782609 5.45110844103 79% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.53405017921 110% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 5.5376344086 90% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 14.0 11.8709677419 118% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 3.85842293907 104% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.88709677419 102% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.543877361245 0.236089414692 230% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.175801695654 0.076458572812 230% => Sentence topic similarity is high.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.187290031663 0.0737576698707 254% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.382243933986 0.150856017488 253% => Maybe some contents are duplicated.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.169137980655 0.0645574589148 262% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.4 11.7677419355 114% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 58.1214874552 86% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.10430107527 144% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 10.1575268817 113% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.59 10.9000537634 116% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.08 8.01818996416 101% => OK
difficult_words: 105.0 86.8835125448 121% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 10.002688172 120% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.0537634409 103% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 10.247311828 117% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 73.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.0 Out of 30
---------------------
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.