Aggrandizing the authority of the experts' power, the author makes a recommendation that only the critical judgements delivered from an expert could be valuable and useful while the others are meaningless. I generally disavow the argument because it extols the rightness of authority and thus may lead to the inhibition of innovation and revolutionary progress, instead, I suppose in most areas, critical judgements made by anyone could have positive and effective influences on the field.
On the one hand, the arguer considers the experts as unimpeachable and unassailable ones, which will result in inhibiting the creative ideas and promoting the monopoly of the judgement system. There are considerable instances in history that prove the critical thoughts given by nobody could be extremely valuable. Let's take Darwin as an example. By introducing the theory of natural selection, he demonstrated the flaws in the prevailing theory which considered the evolution is motivated by the animals' willingness. Surely, with the cogent evidences of birds' phenotype in an island, he made a judgement which can certainly be considered as critical. The new theory contribute enormously to the field, thus it is doubtful to say that only the experts could give useful judgements.
On the other hand, in certain areas which involve mandatory obeisance of the authority, such as the legal system; authority is determined to be unquestionable whatever the others think about them. If we be "critical" of the laws and thus have the reason for disobeying them, the country will be fragile and unstable. In Hobbes' most famous work Leviathan, he purposed a theory of social contract, which argued that people should not separate moral obligation from legal obligation because a country is established by the time people agree to follow the laws. As we can see above, in legal systems, as well as in military systems, the authority should be unimpeachable in order to maintain stability.
In sum, as I have cogently discussed above, we can see that in most areas, the critical thoughts made by non-experts could contribute to the systems, however in laws it is the other story.
- Young people should be encouraged to pursue long-term, realistic goals rather than seek immediate fame and recognition.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoning for t 50
- The following appeared in a business magazine."As a result of numerous complaints of dizziness and nausea on the part of consumers of Promofoods tuna, the company requested that eight million cans of its tuna be returned for testing. Promofoods concluded 55
- Teachers' salaries should be based on their students' academic performance. 50
- Critical judgment of work in any given field has little value unless it comes from someone who is an expert in that field. 70
- Critical judgment of work in any given field has little value unless it comes from someone who is an expert in that field. 58
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 316, Rule ID: LETS_LET[1]
Message: Did you mean 'Let's'?
Suggestion: Let's
... by nobody could be extremely valuable. Lets take Darwin as an example. By introduci...
^^^^
Line 3, column 395, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...oducing the theory of natural selection, he demonstrated the flaws in the prevail...
^^
Line 3, column 499, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'animals'' or 'animal's'?
Suggestion: animals'; animal's
...dered the evolution is motivated by the animals willingness. Surely, with the cogent ev...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, however, if, may, so, thus, well, while, i suppose, such as, as well as, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 19.5258426966 72% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.4196629213 105% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 14.8657303371 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 10.0 11.3162921348 88% => OK
Pronoun: 19.0 33.0505617978 57% => OK
Preposition: 44.0 58.6224719101 75% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 12.9106741573 85% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1833.0 2235.4752809 82% => OK
No of words: 348.0 442.535393258 79% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.26724137931 5.05705443957 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.31911543099 4.55969084622 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.06732246473 2.79657885939 110% => OK
Unique words: 181.0 215.323595506 84% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.520114942529 0.4932671777 105% => OK
syllable_count: 594.0 704.065955056 84% => 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
Article: 6.0 4.99550561798 120% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 3.10617977528 129% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 9.0 4.38483146067 205% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 20.2370786517 64% => 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: 26.0 23.0359550562 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 60.4132710057 60.3974514979 100% => OK
Chars per sentence: 141.0 118.986275619 119% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.7692307692 23.4991977007 114% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.30769230769 5.21951772744 140% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 7.80617977528 38% => 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: 1.0 4.83258426966 21% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.126765524711 0.243740707755 52% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0465004884592 0.0831039109588 56% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0417075033054 0.0758088955206 55% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0808568277362 0.150359130593 54% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0462366387663 0.0667264976115 69% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.8 14.1392134831 119% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 36.63 48.8420337079 75% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.6 12.1743820225 120% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.58 12.1639044944 112% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.42 8.38706741573 112% => OK
difficult_words: 99.0 100.480337079 99% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 21.0 11.8971910112 177% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 11.2143820225 111% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => 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: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.