Critical judgment of work in any given field has little value unless it comes from someone who is an expert in that field.
The success of an individual is the result of one's hardwork and toil combined with constructive feedback from people that helps one improve their work. This constructive feedback can be both positive and negative and is quintessential as no individual is perfect or knows it all. Diverse views from other individuals only help refine the work by incorporating different perspectives that one may have missed. So then the question comes who is the right audience to take feedback from? It has to be someone who understands and have some knowledge about the field, is unbiased, non-prejudiced, pragmatic and logical, and who is not blinded by any personal motives or envy against the individual. This means that such judgements are meaningful only when taken from this small set of people and not everyone and anyone.
Take example of a political candidate contesting elections. There would be so many people expressing their judgements against or in favour for that candidate. But do we trust them all? The answer is 'probably not' since, it is difficult to trust anyone without them establishing their credibility. They could be driven by their personal vendetta against that candidate and may misrepresent facts. In such cases, who we trust are the estimable people belonging to this field or public figures who are unbiased and make sense. Media also thus, covers such prominent personalities only in all their debate sessions, opinion shows etc. that help public understand facts and for an opinion.
Similar is the case when a new digital product is launched like a mobile phone or a tablet. Both the users and the company look out for the famous, established and credible reviewers for their reviews to make a purchase decision and improve the product respectively. This so happens because these reviewers are not some random people but the subject matter experts of the field and whose opinions matter and make sense.
Along with teaching the importance of judgement, we are also taught whose judgement are most crucial and should be paid heed to. Like when in school, we always look at our teachers for correcting us and not really our peers who are at almost same level as us. Hence, it can be concluded that any critical judgement has weight only wen it comes from experts of that field. Though there may be a one-off case where a feedback from a person not of that field or expertise may hold value but it is very important to question the basis of such a feedback. It cannot be a gut feeling or intution but should have some very strong basis which is unlikely since the individual lacks knowledge of that particular subject. Would you then in such a scenario trust that feedback and act on it? I would certainly not.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-01-26 | jinjer | 50 | view |
| 2020-01-19 | jason123 | 83 | view |
| 2020-01-11 | __annabelle__ | 50 | view |
| 2019-12-19 | cnegus | 50 | view |
| 2019-12-18 | ken10091995 | 50 | view |
- Some people claim that the goal of politics should be the pursuit of an ideal. Others argue that the goal should be finding common ground and reaching reasonable consensus. 66
- Governments should not fund any scientific research whose consequences are unclear. 83
- The best way to solve environmental problems caused by consumer-generated waste is for towns and cities to impose strict limits on the amount of trash they will accept from each household. 75
- Critical judgment of work in any given field has little value unless it comes from someone who is an expert in that field. 58
- The effectiveness of a country's leaders is best measured by examining the well-being of that country's citizens. 75
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 669, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'lacks'' or 'lack's'?
Suggestion: lacks'; lack's
... which is unlikely since the individual lacks knowledge of that particular subject. W...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, hence, if, look, may, really, so, then, thus, as to
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 27.0 19.5258426966 138% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.4196629213 105% => OK
Conjunction : 30.0 14.8657303371 202% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 24.0 11.3162921348 212% => Less relative clauses wanted (maybe 'which' is over used).
Pronoun: 44.0 33.0505617978 133% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 47.0 58.6224719101 80% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 12.9106741573 62% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2274.0 2235.4752809 102% => OK
No of words: 464.0 442.535393258 105% => OK
Chars per words: 4.90086206897 5.05705443957 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.64119157421 4.55969084622 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.66775177338 2.79657885939 95% => OK
Unique words: 242.0 215.323595506 112% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.521551724138 0.4932671777 106% => OK
syllable_count: 710.1 704.065955056 101% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59117977528 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 12.0 6.24550561798 192% => OK
Article: 2.0 4.99550561798 40% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 3.10617977528 32% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.77640449438 113% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.38483146067 68% => 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: 45.7984715902 60.3974514979 76% => OK
Chars per sentence: 94.75 118.986275619 80% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.3333333333 23.4991977007 82% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.58333333333 5.21951772744 49% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 19.0 10.2758426966 185% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 5.13820224719 39% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.83258426966 62% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.189711897779 0.243740707755 78% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0487834263503 0.0831039109588 59% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0723795565846 0.0758088955206 95% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.108592834822 0.150359130593 72% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0569101872907 0.0667264976115 85% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.3 14.1392134831 80% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 60.65 48.8420337079 124% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.92365168539 39% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 12.1743820225 78% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.14 12.1639044944 92% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.98 8.38706741573 95% => OK
difficult_words: 100.0 100.480337079 100% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 11.8971910112 97% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.2143820225 86% => 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.