The first step to self-knowledge is rejection of the familiar.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, describe specific circumstances in which adopting the recommendation would or would not be advantageous and explain how these examples shape your position.
Knowledge in today's world is important for survival. In this technology filled world that we live in, knowledge drives the scientific side of it, and consequentially the practical world. Serving as the basis for every discover and innovation, knowledge and it's everlasting growth is imminent. Not all scholars learn from the greatest institutes of the world. Not all were trained by the most intelligent humans to walk this planet. A number of eminent scientists, artists, innovators and revolutionaries gained the knowledge required to change the world, without much help from others. They acquired the expertise all by themselves. By learning from their surroundings, from nature and the happenings around them. In that process they were willing to consider new possibilities, and were open to new theories. The knowledge they had acquired from books and people wasn't dogmatic. They believed there was always room for correction. Self-knowledge can be attained only when we let go of what we already know. Self-knowledge can be imbibed only when we make room by rejecting what we know already.
For thousands of years, the common people as well as the renowned scholars believed the earth was flat. It was established the earth was a flat piece of ground because they were not able to come up with better explanations for the flat ground that was visible to naked eyes. For many years people had accepted that as a fact and refused to challenge it. It wasn't until long before Copernicus challenged this fact. He came up with the possibility that earth could be a spherical object. Copernicus let go of the established fact. and deployed a better thought process. He let go of familiar facts and opened his mind to new possibilities. Sometimes for the brain to work to it's full potential, we have to discard known facts and make room for new theories and possibilities.
Another example is the dual charecteristics of light. Light was believed to be of partilcle nature. Light was established as a collection of energy particles called photons. But soon, light was challenged to be of wave nature, given how it displayed wave charecteristics under certain experimental conditions. However, the scientists soon decided that there could be new possibilities. They started thinking outside the box, seeking for answers which needn't necessarily abide by known existing facts. Soon they were able to come to a better conclusion about light. On letting go of the known facts and being considerate to other theories, they discovered that light showed dual charecteristics of both particle and wave nature.
Learning is a thought process which gets us thinking, and consequentially to new ideas and conclusions. However while the brain is still accustomed to a particular dogma or a hard and fast rule, it cannot work to its full potential. While previously established facts are necessary and gives us an idea about the existing situation, to come up with new discoveries and answers, it is highly important that we keep our minds open and considerate to new possibilities. Only when we make room by letting go of what we know, only when we mentally prepare ourselves to accept something new which could be contradicting to what we already know, we can truly attain self-knowledge.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 687, Rule ID: NOUN_AROUND_IT[1]
Message: Consider using 'the surrounding happenings'?
Suggestion: the surrounding happenings
...rom their surroundings, from nature and the happenings around them. In that process they were willing to c...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 865, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: wasn't
...they had acquired from books and people wasnt dogmatic. They believed there was alway...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 358, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: wasn't
... a fact and refused to challenge it. It wasnt until long before Copernicus challenged...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 530, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: And
...ernicus let go of the established fact. and deployed a better thought process. He l...
^^^
Line 5, column 452, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: needn't
...side the box, seeking for answers which neednt necessarily abide by known existing fac...
^^^^^^
Line 7, column 105, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: However,
...uentially to new ideas and conclusions. However while the brain is still accustomed to ...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, however, if, so, still, well, while, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 28.0 19.5258426966 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 12.4196629213 56% => OK
Conjunction : 22.0 14.8657303371 148% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 11.3162921348 133% => OK
Pronoun: 51.0 33.0505617978 154% => OK
Preposition: 68.0 58.6224719101 116% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 12.9106741573 31% => More nominalization wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2749.0 2235.4752809 123% => OK
No of words: 538.0 442.535393258 122% => OK
Chars per words: 5.10966542751 5.05705443957 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.81610080973 4.55969084622 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.03548899176 2.79657885939 109% => OK
Unique words: 262.0 215.323595506 122% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.486988847584 0.4932671777 99% => OK
syllable_count: 832.5 704.065955056 118% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59117977528 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 12.0 6.24550561798 192% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.740449438202 0% => OK
Article: 4.0 4.99550561798 80% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 3.10617977528 32% => OK
Conjunction: 5.0 1.77640449438 281% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 7.0 4.38483146067 160% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 34.0 20.2370786517 168% => OK
Sentence length: 15.0 23.0359550562 65% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 47.1020848942 60.3974514979 78% => OK
Chars per sentence: 80.8529411765 118.986275619 68% => OK
Words per sentence: 15.8235294118 23.4991977007 67% => OK
Discourse Markers: 1.52941176471 5.21951772744 29% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 7.80617977528 77% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 15.0 10.2758426966 146% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 5.13820224719 78% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 15.0 4.83258426966 310% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.073270091191 0.243740707755 30% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0199157589599 0.0831039109588 24% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0225019745467 0.0758088955206 30% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0452362589255 0.150359130593 30% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0173070433715 0.0667264976115 26% => 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: 10.5 14.1392134831 74% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 64.71 48.8420337079 132% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.0 12.1743820225 66% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.06 12.1639044944 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.08 8.38706741573 96% => OK
difficult_words: 126.0 100.480337079 125% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.0 11.8971910112 59% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 8.0 11.2143820225 71% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.7820224719 68% => The average readability is low. Need to imporve the language.
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Better to have 5/6 paragraphs with 3/4 arguments. And try always support/against one side but compare two sides, like this:
para 1: introduction
para 2: reason 1. address both of the views presented for reason 1
para 3: reason 2. address both of the views presented for reason 2
para 4: reason 3. address both of the views presented for reason 3
para 5: reason 4. address both of the views presented for reason 4 (optional)
para 6: conclusion.
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 16.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.