Critical judgments are always conducive, whether received from an expert or non-specialist. There are different opinions on the effectiveness of the criticisms people usually receive from others. Some people hold the idea that only experts in their work field are entitled to lambaste them. However, others with whom my standpoint is aligned believe that the most helpful kind of criticism is not those that are asserted by the experts in the same field but are those that stem from people specializing in different areas. In what follows, I will delineate my viewpoint on the ground of two persuasive reasons.
Without a doubt, the most consequential point corroborating my stance on this subject is that each person has his own perspective. Even experts in the same field have different ideas about a similar topic. When a person is too involved in doing something, he is susceptible to becoming parochial since he pays more than the required attention to details, some of which can be ruled out. Under these circumstances, other people's opinions who major in a different field from that person might come to help. Those people can see the problem from above, as they do not know so much about the details, and through their own perspective, and of course, based on their knowledge and experience, which might be far divergent from that person's. This helps that person to consider other factors and broaden his horizon.
Although the previous reason is the first one crossing the mind at first glance, another remarkable point deserving some words here is that projects, particularly those undertaken by big corporations or companies, consist of various parts. In these cases, criticisms that originated from people with various expertise are not only more helpful than those stemming from people with the same proficiency, but they also expedite the termination of those projects. For instance, take an aerospace engineer as an example. Imagine he wants to design an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) for imaging. He has adequate knowledge of designing a UAV but is not familiar with different kinds of cameras. Therefore, he decided to pick a camera similar to those selected by the other designers before. In the case of facing a problem with the imaging process, it is evident and rational that the opinion of a photographer is more conducive than the opinion of another aerospace engineer. Changing the camera usually results in changes in its weight, which leads to redesigning some parts, if not the whole parts, of the UAV. Had the designer consulted with a person familiar with different types of cameras rather than consulting with another aerospace expert or imitating the work of his predecessors, he would get better results and finish the project much sooner.
To make the long story short, and reflecting upon all the aforementioned grounds, one soon realizes that if people listen to opinions and criticisms of individuals who hold a degree or are proficient in different areas from them far more conducive than just listening to people's with the same field of expertise.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, so, therefore, for instance, kind of, of course
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.5258426966 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 12.4196629213 48% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 14.8657303371 101% => OK
Relative clauses : 19.0 11.3162921348 168% => OK
Pronoun: 45.0 33.0505617978 136% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 77.0 58.6224719101 131% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 12.9106741573 31% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2587.0 2235.4752809 116% => OK
No of words: 506.0 442.535393258 114% => OK
Chars per words: 5.11264822134 5.05705443957 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.7428307748 4.55969084622 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.7673270246 2.79657885939 99% => OK
Unique words: 261.0 215.323595506 121% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.51581027668 0.4932671777 105% => OK
syllable_count: 809.1 704.065955056 115% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 6.24550561798 128% => OK
Article: 1.0 4.99550561798 20% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 3.10617977528 129% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.77640449438 225% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 7.0 4.38483146067 160% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 20.2370786517 104% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 23.0359550562 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 72.2068080533 60.3974514979 120% => OK
Chars per sentence: 123.19047619 118.986275619 104% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.0952380952 23.4991977007 103% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.71428571429 5.21951772744 71% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 7.80617977528 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 10.2758426966 68% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 5.13820224719 136% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.83258426966 145% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.180885313724 0.243740707755 74% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0568933058672 0.0831039109588 68% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.042498345879 0.0758088955206 56% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.115791187933 0.150359130593 77% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0302253330606 0.0667264976115 45% => 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: 14.7 14.1392134831 104% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 47.12 48.8420337079 96% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.92365168539 39% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.1743820225 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.65 12.1639044944 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.73 8.38706741573 104% => OK
difficult_words: 125.0 100.480337079 124% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 11.8971910112 88% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.2143820225 103% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.7820224719 110% => OK
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.
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.