No field of study can advance significantly unless outsiders bring their knowledge and experience to that field of study.
Some people believe that no one of the study’s field progress without adding other people’s knowledge and experiences. For example, the science of psychology requires a various collection of people’s experiences to examine the numerous individual’s reactions related to the abundant circumstances to improve a profound knowledge for the skills of psychology. Besides, people who lived in the renascence period had a different opinion and social or religious attitudes proportional to people who are living in 2019. Therefore, every one of the two groups has specific requirements or situation and it is not possible to solve current problems with the solution of the Renascence period.
On the other hand, some people argue that bringing people’s learning and their experience is not advantageous for each field of study. They claim that with the reorganizing the main point of the former scientist’s theories, the base of science will be doubted and it hampers the knowledge’s growth path. Take the case, in the field of chemical science, the Mandeliov periodic table is a fundamental key to guide the researcher’s work, considering it is the wrong subject, what will happen? Discarding rudimentary achievement causes humankind proceeds surely to new chemical results in the future or maybe fail to success. It motivates people to work hard to find accurate results.
In my opinion, that is acceptable to support the writer’s acclaim which states by supplementing of people experience and their knowledge into each one of study’s field, it makes it advanced, with two reasons: first reason is that something or someone will be progressed in the next time if they move toward proceed direction not to stay at the same position. Furthermore, one should not forget that developments in science and technology require more hard study and searching the new exact methods to improve the previous work of researchers. To illustrate this point one need only refer to medical science history in 800 b.c. at that time medical knowledge was not advanced such as nowadays information. People at that time relayed on trial and error to find a good solution to cure the diseases and subsequently, next physicians educate from the former ones the basics and add their new experiences to that knowledge and transfer collected science to succeeding generations. Secondly, the more new update information, the more prosperous the situation. This leads us to believe that with old information one cannot overcome the new problems which were not in the past. For example, if there are not medical devices work with X-ray or other wave-based technology plenty of risky diseases could not be cured or made an exact diagnosis. In the past, many individuals hadn’t any chance to survive if their malady distinguished wrongly since there wasn’t adequate knowledge to solve this problem.
However, as I maintained in the introductory paragraph, some people state that there is a necessity for putting individual’s training and learning in the fields of study to make it the developed one, but the choice of discarding the people experience not only is not harmful but also it constructs a new atmosphere to challenge validity of people knowledge and experience to modify it for illuminating
In sum, the writer’s statement is slightly satisfactory regarding no progress is not reachable without adding new information and challenging the previous ideas and also without synchronizing data with time situation.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-10-26 | Shadoone | 66 | view |
| 2019-09-24 | mina680 | 66 | view |
| 2019-07-15 | Seema Modak | 58 | view |
| 2019-04-19 | cr.sumiran | 66 | view |
| 2019-02-13 | atiras | 70 | view |
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 329, Rule ID: A_UNCOUNTABLE[4]
Message: Uncountable nouns are usually not used with an indefinite article. Use simply 'profound knowledge'.
Suggestion: profound knowledge
...o the abundant circumstances to improve a profound knowledge for the skills of psychology. Besides, ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 191, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...h one of study's field, it makes it advanced, with two reasons: first reason...
^^
Line 7, column 407, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...experience to modify it for illuminating In sum, the writer's statement is s...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, besides, but, first, furthermore, however, if, may, regarding, second, secondly, so, therefore, for example, such as, in my opinion, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 19.5258426966 87% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 12.4196629213 56% => OK
Conjunction : 24.0 14.8657303371 161% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 11.3162921348 133% => OK
Pronoun: 32.0 33.0505617978 97% => OK
Preposition: 78.0 58.6224719101 133% => OK
Nominalization: 26.0 12.9106741573 201% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3016.0 2235.4752809 135% => OK
No of words: 556.0 442.535393258 126% => OK
Chars per words: 5.42446043165 5.05705443957 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.85588840946 4.55969084622 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.20517272758 2.79657885939 115% => OK
Unique words: 283.0 215.323595506 131% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.508992805755 0.4932671777 103% => OK
syllable_count: 936.0 704.065955056 133% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 6.24550561798 80% => OK
Article: 6.0 4.99550561798 120% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 9.0 4.38483146067 205% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 20.2370786517 89% => OK
Sentence length: 30.0 23.0359550562 130% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 126.116018015 60.3974514979 209% => The lengths of sentences changed so frequently.
Chars per sentence: 167.555555556 118.986275619 141% => OK
Words per sentence: 30.8888888889 23.4991977007 131% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.66666666667 5.21951772744 166% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 7.80617977528 38% => 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: 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: 0.174394716212 0.243740707755 72% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0555519162319 0.0831039109588 67% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0640418792027 0.0758088955206 84% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.10145502337 0.150359130593 67% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0405149055302 0.0667264976115 61% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 19.5 14.1392134831 138% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 32.57 48.8420337079 67% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 16.2 12.1743820225 133% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.75 12.1639044944 121% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.53 8.38706741573 114% => OK
difficult_words: 155.0 100.480337079 154% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.0 11.8971910112 126% => OK
gunning_fog: 14.0 11.2143820225 125% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.7820224719 127% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.