Even though an information is considered as a “fact”, we must not follow blindly. Instead, we should think about the “fact” in more detail.
It is correct that one should be skeptical when viewing a scientific theory, because scientific theories arise from research conducted in a population group. There are surely some exceptions, and these exceptions are the ones that lead to improvements and provide insights for future scientific theories. For example, it is scientifically proven that children start to infer what others are saying by the age of 4. This does not mean that all children start inferring at age 4, this could only be an average of the children involved in the research. Therefore, if this information is viewed sceptically, we might be able to notice that some children could infer at a much earlier or a later age. If the fact is followed blindly/not sceptical, children who do not infer at age 4 will be known as “weird’ or perhaps ‘problematic’, which in reality is not the case.
Second example is from a medical point of view. It is scientifically proven that by ‘zapping’ the brain with an electrical tool can improve memory especially in old adults or people with cognitive deficits. Although this method is widely published and many research has provided evidence that the tool works well, this tool is yet to be officially approved by FDA. This is because researchers remain sceptical about its usage and more research is done. As a result, contradictory findings are reported as zapping the brain may not benefit everyone and perhaps, have side effects. If researchers are not skeptical, we will not know the ‘bad’ sides of brain zapping. Therefore, scientific theories may change with time and one should remain skeptical.
However, it is not necessary that these ‘facts’ may well be proven false in the future. These ‘facts’ may sometimes be wrong when apply to some people due to vast differences among people. For example, scientific theories say that drinking lemon everyday has lots of benefits, improve digestion, burn fats and improve skin complexion. Although these are known as ‘facts’ but it might not benefit everyone equally. One with high acidic level in the stomach should avoid acidic food/drinks. If he or she is not sceptical, and follow the scientific theory blindly, he or she may be in trouble. Hence, this example shows that the ‘fact’ is not necessarily false, but people should be sceptical and decide whether the fact is applicable.
In conclusion, scientific theories which most people consider as ‘fact’ should be look upon with scepticism but this does not mean that these facts may well be proven false in the future. It just means that we need to adopt and adapt these facts intelligently. Therefore, this whole statement might not hold true.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 45, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'an' instead of 'a' if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g. 'an article', 'an hour'
Suggestion: an
... though an information is considered as a 'fact', we must not follow bl...
^
Line 5, column 263, Rule ID: MANY_NN_U[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun research seems to be uncountable; consider using: 'much research', 'a good deal of research'.
Suggestion: much research; a good deal of research
...ugh this method is widely published and many research has provided evidence that the tool wor...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 267, Rule ID: EVERYDAY_EVERY_DAY[3]
Message: 'Everyday' is an adjective. Did you mean 'every day'?
Suggestion: every day
...ntific theories say that drinking lemon everyday has lots of benefits, improve digestion...
^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 93, Rule ID: SHOULD_BE_DO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'looked'?
Suggestion: looked
... consider as 'fact' should be look upon with scepticism but this does not ...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, hence, however, if, look, may, second, so, therefore, well, for example, in conclusion, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 33.0 19.5258426966 169% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 22.0 12.4196629213 177% => OK
Conjunction : 19.0 14.8657303371 128% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 11.3162921348 150% => OK
Pronoun: 43.0 33.0505617978 130% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 39.0 58.6224719101 67% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 12.9106741573 46% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2474.0 2235.4752809 111% => OK
No of words: 468.0 442.535393258 106% => OK
Chars per words: 5.28632478632 5.05705443957 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.65116196802 4.55969084622 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.31203749578 2.79657885939 118% => OK
Unique words: 231.0 215.323595506 107% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.49358974359 0.4932671777 100% => OK
syllable_count: 753.3 704.065955056 107% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 17.0 6.24550561798 272% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 1.0 4.99550561798 20% => OK
Subordination: 9.0 3.10617977528 290% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 5.0 1.77640449438 281% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 2.0 4.38483146067 46% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 25.0 20.2370786517 124% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 23.0359550562 78% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 40.5640234691 60.3974514979 67% => OK
Chars per sentence: 98.96 118.986275619 83% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.72 23.4991977007 80% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.16 5.21951772744 80% => 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 : 11.0 5.13820224719 214% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.83258426966 124% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.519877098052 0.243740707755 213% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.165398101012 0.0831039109588 199% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.16740178207 0.0758088955206 221% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.348011057481 0.150359130593 231% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0883749344301 0.0667264976115 132% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.8 14.1392134831 91% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 48.8420337079 109% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.1743820225 85% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.4 12.1639044944 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.14 8.38706741573 97% => OK
difficult_words: 107.0 100.480337079 106% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 11.8971910112 71% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.2143820225 82% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => 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.