Critical judgment of work in any given field has little value unless it comes from someone who is an expert in that field.
In the above statement, the author contends that a judgment of a particular work is critical and meaningful only if the statement made is from an expert in that field. However, the following essay will contend that it is plausible to disagree with the author's claim.
Admittedly, an expert in that field would have accrued substantial amount of knowledge compared to the laymen. From the experience expert has accrued, he or she would be more exact based on objective information one learned. For example, we cite an expert's literature or presentation when our statement needs to be validated with someone who is acknowledged and influential in the field in order to convince the audience. If we support our statement supported by a professor at Harvard University,compared to a neighbor supporting the claim, it would have more of a credence. Therefore, it could be asserted that a judgment by an expert is only critical in that field.
However, an expert does not always make the right choice or give the right information. If only an expert's judgment were espoused by the society we live in, our society would be lopsided. The expert, although who is generally told to be making an impartial choice, has his or her value that is cherished by oneself. The choices the expert makes would be based on these values. Therefore, whether the expert aims it or not, the judgment is likely to be partially lopsided. It is where many people's values to be espoused in order to make the judgment impartial and to be meaningful to the community.
In addition, if an expert is the only one to trust, our world should not be full of inquiries. If the expert were to make all choices right, resolving all the problems the society heckles, our community would be foundered and the hierarchy would arise in the societal echelon. The expert would be ruling the laymen. However, in our daily lives, we don't see laymen, or general people, subduing to the expert. Every member of a particular field of the community is in part of a judgment of a particular field of work. The expert might be stuck in his own imagination, that his mind is too obdurate to correct one's fallacy. In this particular situation, it is where variegated ideas should be propounded for a better judgment to be made. Thus, we see many expert, politicians, in a field of politics, who garner citizen's recommendation in order to make a better quality of determination. Therefore, harmonization of a community member is required when making a judgment.
In summary, I believe that it is everyone's effort should be subsumed when an expert is making a judgment; to be impartial from one's own values, and to be harmonized with all the members of the community in a particular field. Therefore, the author's statement cannot be fully acknowledged.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-12-07 | wangweichieh | 70 | view |
| 2019-11-30 | Caveira meyona | 66 | view |
| 2018-08-28 | AlexandraWei | 50 | view |
| 2018-08-28 | AlexandraWei | 50 | view |
| 2018-08-27 | AlexandraWei | 70 | view |
- It is more harmful to compromise one's own beliefs than to adhere to them. 63
- In an attempt to improve highway safety, Prunty County last year lowered its speed limit from 55 to 45 miles per hour on all county highways. But this effort has failed: the number of accidents has not decreased, and, based on reports by the highway patro 57
- Colleges and universities should require students to spend at least one semester studying in a foreign country 66
- 61. People should undertake risky action only after they have carefully considered its consequences. 39
- 147. The effectiveness of a country's leaders is best measured by examining the well-being of that country's citizen. 61
Comments
Essay evaluation report
-------------
arguments: OK
-------------
flaws:
No. of Words: 480 while No. of Different Words: 192 //it is wordy somehow.
----------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 24 15
No. of Words: 480 350
No. of Characters: 2265 1500
No. of Different Words: 192 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.681 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.719 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.777 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 168 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 126 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 99 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 61 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.654 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.625 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.335 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.497 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.139 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 250, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'experts'' or 'expert's'?
Suggestion: experts'; expert's
...on one learned. For example, we cite an experts literature or presentation when our sta...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 497, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma
Suggestion: , compared
...ted by a professor at Harvard University,compared to a neighbor supporting the claim, it ...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 100, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'experts'' or 'expert's'?
Suggestion: experts'; expert's
... give the right information. If only an experts judgment were espoused by the society w...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 349, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...laymen. However, in our daily lives, we dont see laymen, or general people, subduing...
^^^^
Line 9, column 242, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...y in a particular field. Therefore, the authors statement cannot be fully acknowledged....
^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['however', 'if', 'so', 'therefore', 'thus', 'for example', 'in addition', 'in summary']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.212290502793 0.240241500013 88% => OK
Verbs: 0.184357541899 0.157235817809 117% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0689013035382 0.0880659088768 78% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0428305400372 0.0497285424764 86% => OK
Pronouns: 0.048417132216 0.0444667217837 109% => OK
Prepositions: 0.10800744879 0.12292977631 88% => OK
Participles: 0.0614525139665 0.0406280797675 151% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.93678026322 2.79330140395 105% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0353817504655 0.030933414821 114% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.0016655270985 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.122905027933 0.0997080785238 123% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0279329608939 0.0249443105267 112% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0167597765363 0.0148568991511 113% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2807.0 2732.02544248 103% => OK
No of words: 478.0 452.878318584 106% => OK
Chars per words: 5.87238493724 6.0361032391 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.67581127817 4.58838876751 102% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.366108786611 0.366273622748 100% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.282426778243 0.280924506359 101% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.217573221757 0.200843997647 108% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.142259414226 0.132149295362 108% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.93678026322 2.79330140395 105% => OK
Unique words: 205.0 219.290929204 93% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.428870292887 0.48968727796 88% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
Word variations: 47.9798069007 55.4138127331 87% => OK
How many sentences: 24.0 20.6194690265 116% => OK
Sentence length: 19.9166666667 23.380412469 85% => OK
Sentence length SD: 43.2258281843 59.4972553346 73% => OK
Chars per sentence: 116.958333333 141.124799967 83% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.9166666667 23.380412469 85% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.333333333333 0.674092028746 49% => More Discourse Markers wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.94800884956 101% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 5.21349557522 96% => OK
Readability: 48.1593444909 51.4728631049 94% => OK
Elegance: 1.38513513514 1.64882698954 84% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.317758397036 0.391690518653 81% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.111199591155 0.123202303941 90% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0686687804241 0.077325440228 89% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.527048380869 0.547984918172 96% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.139998192277 0.149214159877 94% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.140300445605 0.161403998019 87% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.105751317575 0.0892212321368 119% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.526708255812 0.385218514788 137% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0468175756776 0.0692045440612 68% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.254324307023 0.275328986314 92% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0593063215279 0.0653680567796 91% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 10.4325221239 105% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 5.30420353982 75% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 9.0 4.88274336283 184% => Less neutral sentences wanted.
Positive topic words: 10.0 7.22455752212 138% => OK
Negative topic words: 4.0 3.66592920354 109% => OK
Neutral topic words: 8.0 2.70907079646 295% => OK
Total topic words: 22.0 13.5995575221 162% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 70.83 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.25 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: This is not the final score. 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.