No field of study can advance significantly unless outsiders bring their knowledge and experience to that field of study.
Development of technology has led to an increase in the number of scientific fields either new branches of an existing field, novel areas resulting from the merging procedure of a couple of fields or a completely unprecedented area. While a proportion of people maintain that only the people who are professional in a main area of focus can contribute to its improvement, I hold a different view, believing that professionals of other fields can play paramount roles in the development of a specific area. This essay will explore a couple of reasons supporting my perspective in the following paragraphs.
First of all, regarding the fact that each scientific question is not merely a one-dimensional entity, people who are expert in contrasting fields can approach the question from non-identical views. To be more specific, there are several aspects to be addressed while evaluating a single scientific subject, which require diverse knowledge to reach an answer efficiently and competently. For instance, since the professionals of anthropology and biology entered the field of archeology, the latter has experienced a high level of assessing the remains of ancient civilizations and could draw conclusions more thoroughly.
Secondly, new developments in each scientific field provide the entire world of science with a precious repository of distinct tools to make progress by and large. To put it in other words, all knowledge areas enhanced during last centuries and offered many opportunities to themselves and other counterparts. The rapid and significant development of computer and electrical engineering and their ensuing pragmatic implements are of high importance in other engineering and health science fields. Had these tools not been presented, engineers ought to draw their design projects by hand or medical doctors must have difficulty diagnosing their patients’ diseases. Thus, merging various fields can lead to faster results.
From another point of view, professional people of a particular field possess original and thorough knowledge in that area, which can help them to find solutions readily. Thus, as far as the classic parts of a certain subject is being discussed and debated, the older recruits of the field can play a vital role in its improvement. However, they could face numerous troubles while dealing with a new question.
On the whole, taking all the aforementioned reasons and examples into account, I assume that outsiders are welcomed to share their knowledge and experience in another scientific field. Not only are they able to look at a certain topic with a novel outlook, but they also can contribute to faster and more efficient results in the new area. However, the professional perspectives towards a particular subject is still necessary for the classic science.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-10-26 | Shadoone | 66 | view |
| 2019-09-24 | mina680 | 66 | view |
| 2019-07-15 | Seema Modak | 58 | view |
| 2019-04-19 | cr.sumiran | 66 | view |
| 2019-02-13 | atiras | 70 | view |
- We can usually learn much more from people whose views we share than from those whose views contradict our own. Reason: Disagreement can cause stress and inhibit learning. 83
- TPO46 86
- TPO45 73
- TPO40 83
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Because modern life is very complex, it is essential for young people to have the ability to plan and organize. Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer. 73
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 135, Rule ID: HELP_TO_FIND[1]
Message: This phrase is probably grammatically incorrect. Write 'help them find' instead.
Suggestion: help them find
...rough knowledge in that area, which can help them to find solutions readily. Thus, as far as the ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, look, regarding, second, secondly, so, still, thus, while, for instance, in contrast, by and large, first of all, in other words, on the whole
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 19.5258426966 67% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.4196629213 97% => OK
Conjunction : 18.0 14.8657303371 121% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 11.3162921348 80% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 22.0 33.0505617978 67% => OK
Preposition: 63.0 58.6224719101 107% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 12.9106741573 116% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2391.0 2235.4752809 107% => OK
No of words: 441.0 442.535393258 100% => OK
Chars per words: 5.42176870748 5.05705443957 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.58257569496 4.55969084622 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.11604726647 2.79657885939 111% => OK
Unique words: 244.0 215.323595506 113% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.553287981859 0.4932671777 112% => OK
syllable_count: 736.2 704.065955056 105% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 6.24550561798 64% => OK
Article: 4.0 4.99550561798 80% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 3.10617977528 97% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.38483146067 137% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 20.2370786517 84% => 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: 25.0 23.0359550562 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 54.4945951417 60.3974514979 90% => OK
Chars per sentence: 140.647058824 118.986275619 118% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.9411764706 23.4991977007 110% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.1764705882 5.21951772744 195% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 10.2758426966 117% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 5.13820224719 19% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.83258426966 83% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.2405137544 0.243740707755 99% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0739909153562 0.0831039109588 89% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0602729339474 0.0758088955206 80% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.136069753389 0.150359130593 90% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0190742158463 0.0667264976115 29% => 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: 17.1 14.1392134831 121% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 37.64 48.8420337079 77% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 12.1743820225 117% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.45 12.1639044944 119% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.75 8.38706741573 116% => OK
difficult_words: 136.0 100.480337079 135% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 19.5 11.8971910112 164% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.2143820225 107% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.