No field of study can advance significantly unless it incorporates knowledge and experience from outside 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.
The author claims that any field of study cannot grow unless there are inputs or expertise from outside that field of study. I completely agree with the author in this standpoint.
any subject or field is not just topics or expertise in just that field but a mixture of different fields put together. Anything in this world is interdisciplinary. Nothing works purely based on one particular field. To understand this better, consider an example of a mission to launch a rocket to the moon. The initial stages of the mission will revolve around researchers from different fields trying to understand what and where to study in the moon. In the further stages, engineers come into the picture to build the whole rocket. Now, building the whole rocket not just involves mechanical engineers but rather not all but most engineers from various disciplines like electronics engineers for the circuits, materials engineers for deciding upon the materials used in the rocket, computer engineers to decide upon and optimize the software to mention a few. People with expertise in logistics and planning try to plan for any disruptions in any availability and the measures that can be taken to avoid it. financial consultants are consulted to optimize the cost further thus reducing the overall build cost of the rocket. Once the rocket is built and up for launch, communication engineers come into the picture to establish communication with the rocket and the satellite. Once the rocket has landed on moon, data science engineers play a crucial role in analyzing the acquired data. The analyzed data is then sent to biologists for detailed research on the received data to arrive at any conclusions or new findings. As explained above, the launching of a rocket takes the expertise of many engineers, scientists and researchers who are from different backgrounds and fields.
consider another example as simple as the fan above us. A lot of detail has gone into designing the simple fan. Starting off with the exterior design, mechanical engineers and product designers play a crucial role in designing the structure of the fan. Continuing with electrical engineers who decide upon the motor requirement and based on this input, the designers have to further optimize the design of the fan. product designers also decide upon the aesthetics and the looks that go into the fan. based on all this, financial consultants along with market experts decide upon the price of the fan considering all market factors such as competitors, customer requirements and the market status. After all this, marketing experts decide upon how to market the fan for a better reach to increase profits.
From the above two examples, a clear conclusion can be arrived. any field of study cannot thrive or cannot progress if there is no support from other fields or considerable contribution from other areas of expertise
- People who make decisions based on emotion and justify those decisions with logic afterwards are poor decision makers Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the pos 50
- People who make decisions based on emotion and justify those decisions with logic afterwards are poor decision makers Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the pos 50
- People who make decisions based on emotion and justify those decisions with logic afterwards are poor decision makers Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the pos 50
- People who make decisions based on emotion and justify those decisions with logic afterwards are poor decision makers 60
- People who make decisions based on emotion and justify those decisions with logic afterwards are poor decision makers 50
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Any
... with the author in this standpoint. any subject or field is not just topics or ...
^^^
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Consider
...om different backgrounds and fields. consider another example as simple as the fan ab...
^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 416, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Product
...further optimize the design of the fan. product designers also decide upon the aestheti...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 502, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Based
...ics and the looks that go into the fan. based on all this, financial consultants alon...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 65, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Any
...les, a clear conclusion can be arrived. any field of study cannot thrive or cannot ...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, if, look, so, then, thus, after all, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 19.5258426966 51% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 12.4196629213 48% => OK
Conjunction : 21.0 14.8657303371 141% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 11.3162921348 71% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 14.0 33.0505617978 42% => OK
Preposition: 81.0 58.6224719101 138% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 12.9106741573 46% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2425.0 2235.4752809 108% => OK
No of words: 475.0 442.535393258 107% => OK
Chars per words: 5.10526315789 5.05705443957 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.66845742379 4.55969084622 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.76936625849 2.79657885939 99% => OK
Unique words: 224.0 215.323595506 104% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.471578947368 0.4932671777 96% => OK
syllable_count: 765.0 704.065955056 109% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 6.24550561798 16% => OK
Article: 7.0 4.99550561798 140% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.38483146067 91% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 20.2370786517 119% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 23.0359550562 82% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 59.8836835503 60.3974514979 99% => OK
Chars per sentence: 101.041666667 118.986275619 85% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.7916666667 23.4991977007 84% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.29166666667 5.21951772744 44% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 7.80617977528 64% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 10.2758426966 127% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 5.13820224719 39% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 9.0 4.83258426966 186% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.141187784358 0.243740707755 58% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.043956466777 0.0831039109588 53% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0535457598067 0.0758088955206 71% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.122603441519 0.150359130593 82% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0696875277715 0.0667264976115 104% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.5 14.1392134831 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 48.8420337079 107% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.92365168539 39% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.1743820225 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.36 12.1639044944 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.1 8.38706741573 97% => OK
difficult_words: 106.0 100.480337079 105% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.5 11.8971910112 55% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.2143820225 86% => 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: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.