I agree that incorporates knowledge and experience from outside the field can help us advance significantly. However, it is not a necessary premise for all advances in each field. The knowledge of our original field is actually the more indispensable base for us to achieve any successful results in any field.
Borrowing experience from other domains can help us to avoid some blind spots present in our field. For example, an athlete usually needs to train under the supervision of an experienced coach to achieve any high-level performance. However, the exactitude of every small posture in the sport can influence the results largely, which is a tough task even with the professional coach. Nowadays, after the emergence of well-developed technology on sensors and simulation software, an athlete can use the sensor to capture the trace of their movement, compare the difference between theirs and the professional ones and revise their movement with the aid of simulation software. This is a very successful example to incorporate technical knowledge into the study field of sport and make sport advance.
In the study field of chemistry, researchers also use knowledge from computer science to help them simulate the process of chemical reactions. In a large and fast simulation, researchers can find possible compounds that meet their demand and wealth of the following experiment to be conducted. The incorporation of two different domains can accelerate the advance of the study domain.
However, the premise of this kind of advance is strongly based on the depth of the knowledge of our original field. If the athlete has no tough skills in his field and only wants to gain performance by the technical sensors, it is definitely not feasible. If the chemistry researchers do not know well on the properties of the target compounds they need to conduct experiments on, it is no use for them to run any simulation even with a super-computer. On the other hand, if someone can research deeply in his field with his ambition and talent, he will probably succeed to advance without the aid of knowledge from other fields.
To conclude, I believe that the incorporation of pieces of knowledge from different fields really makes advance significantly, but it is not the only path to achieve it for every study field. The knowledge in our main study field is more important for us to study on before we incorporate knowledge from other fields.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, however, if, really, so, well, for example, kind of, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 15.1003584229 66% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 9.8082437276 92% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 13.8261648746 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 4.0 11.0286738351 36% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 32.0 43.0788530466 74% => OK
Preposition: 68.0 52.1666666667 130% => OK
Nominalization: 24.0 8.0752688172 297% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2057.0 1977.66487455 104% => OK
No of words: 403.0 407.700716846 99% => OK
Chars per words: 5.10421836228 4.8611393121 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.48049772903 4.48103885553 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.96404036484 2.67179642975 111% => OK
Unique words: 191.0 212.727598566 90% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.473945409429 0.524837075471 90% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 653.4 618.680645161 106% => 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: 7.0 3.08781362007 227% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 4.0 3.51792114695 114% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.86738351254 54% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.94265232975 101% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 20.6003584229 83% => 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 20.1344086022 114% => OK
Sentence length SD: 49.3367076997 48.9658058833 101% => OK
Chars per sentence: 121.0 100.406767564 121% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.7058823529 20.6045352989 115% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.35294117647 5.45110844103 98% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.53405017921 110% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.5376344086 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 11.8709677419 76% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 3.85842293907 78% => 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: 0.474955633794 0.236089414692 201% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.174036277813 0.076458572812 228% => Sentence topic similarity is high.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.126225088214 0.0737576698707 171% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.307073258796 0.150856017488 204% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.094925693262 0.0645574589148 147% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.4 11.7677419355 122% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.13 58.1214874552 83% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.10430107527 144% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 10.1575268817 121% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.6 10.9000537634 116% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.11 8.01818996416 101% => OK
difficult_words: 85.0 86.8835125448 98% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 10.002688172 85% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.0537634409 111% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.247311828 88% => 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.