Critical judgment of work in any given field has little value unless it comes from someone who is an expert in that field.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position.
Does a critical judgement delivered by a non-specialist of any realm really matters? Or, is it always the critical judgement of some erudite that we really value? While few critics might argue that only the judgments coming from some experts are worthy of pondering and the rest are not worth of value, yet many real life experiences prove that these critics are not right. Therefore, my cut-and-dried opinion is that anyone who have knowledge and influence in the given field are given due attention and their judgments are genuinely valued. As such, experts opinion might not always listened, as we generally believe.
Firstly, and probably most importantly, there are several sectors where laymen are more knowledgeable and influential and their opinions are valued more than someone having technical knowledge. In wildlife conservation, for instance, local people are kept at the center of the whole process, irrespective of their education background and expertise. In Chitwan National Park of Nepal, first national park of Nepal which is the prime habitat of endangered one-horned Rhinoceros and Royal Bengal Tiger in Nepal, local people are more influential in conservation, rather than local conservation officials, because local people have more thorough and location specific knowledge of the park. This method of involving people and paying attention to them has resulted betterment in the park to boot; for example, tiger population is 198 today (which is 63% more than 2009) and one horned rhinoceros population is 405 for 445 total Rhinoceros population of Nepal. These people involve in this conservation activities in the form of buffer zone committees and sometimes governmental experts and policymakers themselves go to learn from them.
Finally, as aforementioned, some critics might argue that in real world, only experts' opinions are worthy of value, albeit I disagree. Raghuram Rajan, for example, is the former counselor of IMF, erstwhile Government of Reserve Bank of India and, now, distinguished serving professor of finance at University of Chicago Booth Business School; In 2005 (when he was counselor of IMF) he augured in front of distinguished economists, bankers and businesspersons that a serious financial crisis might be at hand. The surprising thing is no body took him seriously at that time, nobody thought it was a thing worthy to listen; consequently, however, in 2008 financial crisis, his admonition was remembered by all. Again, in 2014, he has warned global financial community that another disastrous crisis, like great depression of 1930, might be coming. The story of this talent does not ends here, Indian government recently declared to demonetize notes of IC 500 and IC 1000 to fight against black money and terrorism; then again, Rajan suggested Indian government that this is not a good idea so much as there are several viable and trust-worthy procedures. But having said that the government moved forward and ignored his suggestions. Thus, the common notion that experts' critical judgments are always welcomed is a fallacious belief.
To recapitulate, it is crystal clear that anybody's judgments and opinions who have knowledge and influences are taken seriously: it may be a layperson as well. In contrast, there is no guarantee that experts' critical judgments and their prospective are invariably valued.
- To understand the most important characteristics of a society/country, It is adequate to study its major cities. 79
- Much of the information that people assume as 'factual' actually turns out to be inaccurate. Thus, any piece of information referred to as a 'fact' should be mistrusted since it may well be proven false in the future. 16
- Movies can tell us a lot about the country in which they were made. What have you learned about a country from watching its movies? Use specific examples and details to support your response. 70
- The following appeared in a report of the committee on faculty promotions and salaries at Eim City University.“During her seventeen years as a professor of botany, Prof. Thomas has proved herself to be well worth annual salary of $ 50,000. Her classes a 70
- The following appeared in a letter to the editor of the Balmer Island Gazette."On Balmer Island, where mopeds serve as a popular form of transportation, the population increases to 100,000 during the summer months. To reduce the number of accidents involv 79
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 167, Rule ID: HE_VERB_AGR[1]
Message: The pronoun 'someone' must be used with a third-person verb: 'has'.
Suggestion: has
...r opinions are valued more than someone having technical knowledge. In wildlife conser...
^^^^^^
Line 6, column 363, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...oth Business School; In 2005 when he was counselor of IMF he augured in front of ...
^^
Line 6, column 533, Rule ID: ANY_BODY[2]
Message: Did you mean 'nobody'?
Suggestion: nobody
...ght be at hand. The surprising thing is no body took him seriously at that time, nobody...
^^^^^^^
Line 6, column 880, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[3]
Message: The verb 'does' requires base form of the verb: 'end'
Suggestion: end
...ming. The story of this talent does not ends here, Indian government recently declar...
^^^^
Line 6, column 1024, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...t black money and terrorism; then again, Rajan suggested Indian government that t...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, consequently, finally, first, firstly, however, if, may, really, so, then, therefore, thus, well, while, for example, for instance, in contrast
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 33.0 19.5258426966 169% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 12.4196629213 48% => OK
Conjunction : 25.0 14.8657303371 168% => OK
Relative clauses : 19.0 11.3162921348 168% => OK
Pronoun: 40.0 33.0505617978 121% => OK
Preposition: 54.0 58.6224719101 92% => OK
Nominalization: 22.0 12.9106741573 170% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2842.0 2235.4752809 127% => OK
No of words: 528.0 442.535393258 119% => OK
Chars per words: 5.38257575758 5.05705443957 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.79356345386 4.55969084622 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.93311722454 2.79657885939 105% => OK
Unique words: 288.0 215.323595506 134% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.545454545455 0.4932671777 111% => OK
syllable_count: 879.3 704.065955056 125% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 6.24550561798 96% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.740449438202 0% => OK
Article: 3.0 4.99550561798 60% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 3.10617977528 161% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.77640449438 169% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 4.38483146067 182% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 20.2370786517 94% => OK
Sentence length: 27.0 23.0359550562 117% => OK
Sentence length SD: 86.9816741294 60.3974514979 144% => OK
Chars per sentence: 149.578947368 118.986275619 126% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.7894736842 23.4991977007 118% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.78947368421 5.21951772744 149% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 7.80617977528 64% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 10.2758426966 68% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 5.13820224719 156% => OK
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: 0.134499542233 0.243740707755 55% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0428541969734 0.0831039109588 52% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.035767024024 0.0758088955206 47% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0859410201709 0.150359130593 57% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0486302138751 0.0667264976115 73% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.8 14.1392134831 126% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 35.61 48.8420337079 73% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.0 12.1743820225 123% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.22 12.1639044944 117% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.34 8.38706741573 111% => OK
difficult_words: 146.0 100.480337079 145% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 11.8971910112 92% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.8 11.2143820225 114% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.7820224719 127% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.