“In any field of inquiry, the beginner is more likely than the expert to make important contributions.”
Does the younger generation have a better skill set than the older generation? Is the younger generation more capable than the working generation?
Yes and no. The younger generation, having a wide range of approachable skills and an even wider range of exposure with curious minds have a wider perspective which makes one think of several different ways to approach a problem. It urges them to think way out and beyond the box. Whereas, the antecedent generation, with more experience, has more profound knowledge to apply and authenticate.
This is especially applicable to the corporate. If an industry accepts the younger generation, they increase their chances of taking into account every possibility of finding a solution. For example, a lot of CEOs of MNCs look for younger CEOs to bequeath their responsibility, knowing fairly well what the younger generation can bring to the table. This does not in any way mean that the older generation is not capable. The older generation has far more experience and combined with the right mind, the seed of prosperity can be sowed.
What must also be remembered is the contribution of the older generation in making the younger generation so capable. It is because of what the older generation put on the table which made the life of the upcoming generation much smoother giving them enough time to spend their time building and learning the right skills in less time.
Hence, it goes unsaid the importance of a younger person's contribution to the future. While one with experience will think only with a limited perspective, the one with uncircumscribed view and experience will go beyond their scope of thought to find what their curious and young mind will seek to find.
Conclusively, it is important to have a maverick and not an insular field of vision.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 185, Rule ID: NUMEROUS_DIFFERENT[1]
Message: Use simply 'several'.
Suggestion: several
...er perspective which makes one think of several different ways to approach a problem. It urges th...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 51, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'persons'' or 'person's'?
Suggestion: persons'; person's
...goes unsaid the importance of a younger persons contribution to the future. While one w...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, hence, if, look, so, then, well, whereas, while, for example
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 19.5258426966 41% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 12.4196629213 48% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 14.8657303371 61% => OK
Relative clauses : 3.0 11.3162921348 27% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 15.0 33.0505617978 45% => OK
Preposition: 39.0 58.6224719101 67% => OK
Nominalization: 22.0 12.9106741573 170% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1514.0 2235.4752809 68% => OK
No of words: 302.0 442.535393258 68% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.01324503311 5.05705443957 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.1687104957 4.55969084622 91% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.85973883832 2.79657885939 102% => OK
Unique words: 157.0 215.323595506 73% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.519867549669 0.4932671777 105% => OK
syllable_count: 473.4 704.065955056 67% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 6.24550561798 112% => OK
Article: 6.0 4.99550561798 120% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.38483146067 23% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 20.2370786517 79% => 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: 18.0 23.0359550562 78% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 61.7095008892 60.3974514979 102% => OK
Chars per sentence: 94.625 118.986275619 80% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.875 23.4991977007 80% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.4375 5.21951772744 85% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 4.97078651685 121% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 10.2758426966 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 5.13820224719 39% => 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: 0.107968407794 0.243740707755 44% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0441497846505 0.0831039109588 53% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0466580245794 0.0758088955206 62% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0644292542575 0.150359130593 43% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.030592048054 0.0667264976115 46% => 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: 11.6 14.1392134831 82% => 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: 11.78 12.1639044944 97% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.72 8.38706741573 92% => OK
difficult_words: 61.0 100.480337079 61% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 6.5 11.8971910112 55% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.2143820225 82% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => 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.