Knowing about the past cannot help people to make important decisions.
The past is the bedrock of the present. The past has a great influence on the decisions we make today. Therefore, I think the argument about knowing about the past cannot help people to make important decisions is untenable. In order to learn from valuable lessons from history experience, we must treat history facts without bias, and analyze them from various perspectives, including time, social environment, and economics. Only in this way can we reach the accurate and insightful decisions.
It is commonly acknowledged that an understanding of the past is essential to an understanding of the present. The analysis and interpretation of history provide valuable context for evaluating the contemporary institutions and politics. Besides, history provides a unique insight into human nature and human civilizations. That’s why we cannot run away but learn from history: it offers an extensive evidential base for the contemplation and how societies functions and people need to have some sense of how societies function to run their own life. History forms our lives, but only present, but future. Any time we want to know what happened-whether a shift in a political party in the US Congress or a war in the middle east we have to look for factors that took shape earlier. Sometimes the recent event may help to explain the reasons, but we need to take a further back to identify the cause of change. Only through studying and analyzing the history can we grasp how they change and we understanding the similarities between events, thus providing us with solutions to current problems.
Nevertheless, we should not totally follow the precedent practice because the social environment, people’s habits, and locations vary. If we mechanically follow past’s practice and apply it to current problems, the outcome could be devastating. Besides, some old practices may have their limited, their success depended on beyond expectations and asymmetric information, when the general public knew about them, the practice would no longer be effective. For instance, in the stock market, a potential buyer of Company XYZ shares and the seller of those shares. If the seller knows the CFO's brother-in-law and has heard that the company is facing undisclosed financial problems, then the seller has asymmetric information. The seller would want to sell the shares before the news was available to the public. Once the company's problems are made public, it is likely that the shares will plummet causing anyone that owns stock in XYZ to lose money. Essentially, the seller is taking advantage of the buyer's lack of knowledge.
To sum up, the past does provide us with useful information and it helps us to make the right decisions. But we cannot fully apply past practices to our modern societies, we must treat them with flexibility.
- Many problems cannot be solved by laws and legal system because moral behaviors cannot be legislated. 83
- Since those issues of Newsbeat magazine that featured political news on their front cover were the poorest-selling issues over the past three years, the publisher of Newsbeat has recommended that the magazine curtail its emphasis on politics to focus more 52
- Every individual in a society has a responsibility to obey just laws and to disobey and resist unjust laws 79
- A recent study reported that pet owners have longer, healthier lives on average than do people who own no pets. Specifically, dog owners tend to have a lower incidence of heart disease. In light of these findings, Sherwood Hospital should form a partnersh 63
- Knowing about the past cannot help people to make important decisions. 70
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 391, Rule ID: GENERAL_XX[1]
Message: Use simply 'public'.
Suggestion: public
...ns and asymmetric information, when the general public knew about them, the practice would no ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
besides, but, if, look, may, nevertheless, so, then, therefore, thus, for instance, i think, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 19.5258426966 56% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 12.4196629213 129% => OK
Conjunction : 22.0 14.8657303371 148% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 11.3162921348 53% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 39.0 33.0505617978 118% => OK
Preposition: 62.0 58.6224719101 106% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 12.9106741573 93% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2393.0 2235.4752809 107% => OK
No of words: 460.0 442.535393258 104% => OK
Chars per words: 5.20217391304 5.05705443957 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.6311565067 4.55969084622 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.97139720052 2.79657885939 106% => OK
Unique words: 252.0 215.323595506 117% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.547826086957 0.4932671777 111% => OK
syllable_count: 742.5 704.065955056 105% => 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: 9.0 4.99550561798 180% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 3.10617977528 97% => OK
Conjunction: 7.0 1.77640449438 394% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 4.38483146067 68% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 20.2370786517 114% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 23.0359550562 87% => OK
Sentence length SD: 50.4077513768 60.3974514979 83% => OK
Chars per sentence: 104.043478261 118.986275619 87% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.0 23.4991977007 85% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.4347826087 5.21951772744 85% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 10.2758426966 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 5.13820224719 136% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.83258426966 124% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.237067478495 0.243740707755 97% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0690406068247 0.0831039109588 83% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.128892388258 0.0758088955206 170% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.172876895514 0.150359130593 115% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.124184463189 0.0667264976115 186% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.1 14.1392134831 93% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 48.8420337079 105% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.1743820225 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.88 12.1639044944 106% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.82 8.38706741573 105% => OK
difficult_words: 122.0 100.480337079 121% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 11.8971910112 76% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.2143820225 89% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => 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: 70.83 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.25 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.