Claim: A piece of information referred to as a fact should be mistrusted, since it may well be proven false in the future.
Reason: Much of the information that people assume is factual turns out to be inaccurate.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim and the reason on which that claim is based.
Curiosity is inherent in our nature, and because of that we prosper and expand our knowledge through gaining information. Though sometimes one has to be chary that whether the piece of information is correct or not. The only problem is that today’s correct information may not be true tomorrow. The above prompt sets that a piece of information referred to as a fact should be mistrusted since it may well be proven false in the future. While I concede that some information that is considered fact may be proved wrong in the future but in my opinion, I mostly disagree with the fact that a piece of information that is assumed by many as fact should be always mistrusted without verifying its authenticity.
To begin, a piece of information that is referred to as a fact should not be mistrusted at first without any pore-over. Though some information that is assumed to be a fact sometimes turns out to be false for that reason one can not assume that information that is widely accepted as fact will always eventually be debunked by someone. For example, earlier people assumed that the earth is the center of the universe and the sun and other planets revolve around the earth but people can not explains several scientific problems by that information, which leads to unearthing many new scientific phenomenons. Latter the information was belied by several scientists. This above example shows that though sometimes we assumed some wrong information as a fact, inducing that information let to discover many more new pieces of information. Thus people can discover many new information by debunking that information. Hence mistrusting a piece of information at first will impede progress.
Furthermore, a piece of information that is considered by many as a fact sometimes is not fully wrong but there are several new contradicting observations that should be amalgamated to expand our knowledge. Let’s take an example that all balls are red is a fact but it can be easily debunked by the observation of a ball that is blue. Instead of recanting the previous piece of information we can amalgamate it with the latter findings and conclude that some balls are red and some are blue. This illustrates that instead of revoking wildly held beliefs one can create a web of knowledge where a new contradicting fact should be synthesized into the previous web of knowledge to expand our knowledge. We can also take the periodic table as a prime example that all metals are not the same type but when they are different they should be amalgamated with the previous one in order to make a flawless system of knowledge.
However, some information that is accepted as a fact does not have any viable premise other than belief and will have the most chances to be debunked. Some information should be mistrusted because on which base the fact was situated tough it is assumed true by many people. For example, a piece of information that is written in the Bible can not be accepted as a fact without any legitimate evidence. The above example illustrates that some facts should be mistrusted despite their popularity among the people. In that case, one can mistrust the fact because of its’ lack of scientific premise. Assuming the truth of a fact without any evidence is not the way knowledge should be expanded. So sometimes one can mistrust a fact.
Despite these reasons that a piece of information that people assumed is factual should be mistrusted has its merit such as in the latter future it may be inaccurate but such advantages are overshadowed by the possible disadvantages which are far more severe in nature. Thus mistrusting factual information is not advisable rather accepting it from a scientific point of view is preferable.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-06-12 | HAN YEBIN | 50 | view |
| 2023-09-21 | Dipesh1234 | 66 | view |
| 2023-09-05 | wopona8219 | 66 | view |
| 2023-08-30 | Kamnele | 33 | view |
| 2023-08-18 | IshaanN | 50 | view |
- In a study of the reading habits of Waymarsh citizens conducted by the University of Waymarsh most respondents said they preferred literary classics as reading material However a second study conducted by the same researchers found that the type of book m 60
- The following memo appeared in the newsletter of the West Meria Public Health Council An innovative treatment has come to our attention that promises to significantly reduce absenteeism in our schools and workplaces A study reports that in nearby East Mer 28
- 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 partnership wi 58
- The following is part of a memorandum from the president of Humana University Last year the number of students who enrolled in online degree programs offered by nearby Omni University increased by 50 percent During the same year Omni showed a significant 58
- According to an independent poll of 200 charitable organizations overall donations of money to nonprofit groups increased last year but educational institutions did not fare as well as other organizations Donations to international aid groups increased th 58
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 562, Rule ID: AGREE_WITH_THE_FACT[1]
Message: Use simply 'disagree that'.
Suggestion: disagree that
... the future but in my opinion, I mostly disagree with the fact that a piece of information that is assumed ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 492, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[3]
Message: The verb 'can' requires base form of the verb: 'explain'
Suggestion: explain
...lve around the earth but people can not explains several scientific problems by that inf...
^^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 862, Rule ID: MANY_NN_U[3]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun information seems to be uncountable; consider using: 'much new information', 'a good deal of new information'.
Suggestion: much new information; a good deal of new information
...f information. Thus people can discover many new information by debunking that information. Hence mi...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 914, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Hence,
...ormation by debunking that information. Hence mistrusting a piece of information at f...
^^^^^
Line 4, column 564, Rule ID: YOURS_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: An apostrophe is never used to form possessive case pronouns. Did you mean: 'its'?
Suggestion: its
...e, one can mistrust the fact because of its’ lack of scientific premise. Assuming th...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, furthermore, hence, however, if, may, so, then, thus, well, while, as to, for example, such as, in my opinion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 51.0 19.5258426966 261% => Less to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 27.0 12.4196629213 217% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 14.0 14.8657303371 94% => OK
Relative clauses : 36.0 11.3162921348 318% => Less relative clauses wanted (maybe 'which' is over used).
Pronoun: 57.0 33.0505617978 172% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 75.0 58.6224719101 128% => OK
Nominalization: 27.0 12.9106741573 209% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3115.0 2235.4752809 139% => OK
No of words: 634.0 442.535393258 143% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.91324921136 5.05705443957 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 5.01790360848 4.55969084622 110% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.87443204159 2.79657885939 103% => OK
Unique words: 236.0 215.323595506 110% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.372239747634 0.4932671777 75% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 1010.7 704.065955056 144% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 6.24550561798 64% => OK
Article: 6.0 4.99550561798 120% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 3.10617977528 97% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.38483146067 91% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 26.0 20.2370786517 128% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 23.0359550562 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 65.8354704669 60.3974514979 109% => OK
Chars per sentence: 119.807692308 118.986275619 101% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.3846153846 23.4991977007 104% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.88461538462 5.21951772744 94% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 7.80617977528 64% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 10.2758426966 107% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 5.13820224719 175% => 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: 0.483921759859 0.243740707755 199% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.166865817091 0.0831039109588 201% => Sentence topic similarity is high.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.120550918143 0.0758088955206 159% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.32739205202 0.150359130593 218% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0995434687915 0.0667264976115 149% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.9 14.1392134831 98% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 47.12 48.8420337079 96% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.1743820225 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.49 12.1639044944 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.59 8.38706741573 90% => OK
difficult_words: 111.0 100.480337079 110% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 11.8971910112 97% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.2143820225 103% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4 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.