In any field of endeavor, it is impossible to make a significant contribution without first being strongly influenced by past achievements within 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 puts forward an unwarranted claim strongly emphasized by the use of the word ‘impossible’. Thereby, the author asserts that a strong influence of the past achievements is a necessary condition for making a significant contribution to a field. In claiming so however, the author overlooks the case of the pioneers of a field and also the achievers who find motivation in past failures rather than successes. Instances of successes in the past do help in achieving an incremental success but a disruptive achievement is often preceded by a series of failures.
Pioneers are the ones who explore the frontiers of human wisdom in a sphere of life, and hence, do not have any illustration or roadmap from the past to guide them through in this journey, for that matter, sometimes they even have serendipitous experiences. For instance, Cristopher Columbus, set out from Spain in 1492, in a hope to reach Asia, in a search for gold, pearls and spices. He instead discovered America, without accurate maps and dependent only on steady wind and calmness of the sea water. And in the process his crewmates underwent apprehensions about how long it will take them to reach the land, which he desperately attempted to mollify. Under such uncertainties, a constant sense of foreboding and a paucity of even any anecdote as a guide in their pioneering journey, they achieved success, though serendipitously.
Sometimes people pursue a problem just out of their interest and the affinity they ‘feel’ towards solving that problem and don’t even know or care about what has been achieved in the field. An instance of the Indian mathematical prodigy Ramanujan seems apt this category. Ramanujan was believed to have ‘re-discovered’ many foundational aspects of number theory just out of the sheer pleasure he derived from solving the problems in that field. Before reaching Cambridge, he was not even completely aware of the fact that majority of the results he has discovered were already deemed as established facts in the germane mathematical circles. He nevertheless continued working in the same direction, and left many recondite results in his now ‘Lost notebooks’, which contemporary mathematicians still find elusive to decipher.
History is awash with instances of individuals who motivated by failures instead of successes, go on to rewrite it with achievements. A popular instance in this direction is attributed to Thomas Alva Edison, who despite his innumerable failures during his journey of the invention of incandescent bulbs, persisted and later developed the pioneering design of bulbs, variants of which have still been in use today, only to be superseded by more power efficient LED bulbs today. Even the story of the development of white light LED bulbs which was later awarded the Nobel prize in 2014 has similar takeaways. Before early 1990s, only red and green LED were developed and the intricacies of blue LEDs remained elusive to grapple, thereby hamstringing the development of white-light LED bulbs. The efforts from both academia and industry failed to develop blue LEDs, however, a group of Japanese scientists(Akasaki, Amano and Nakamura) persisted and solved those problems, giving energy efficient and environmental friendly white LED light bulbs to the mankind.
Past achievements bolster the confidence of a novice entering in a field or even the veterans of the field gearing up to address significant challenges, however, they cannot be deemed as a necessary condition for further innovation, as substantiated by the instances above. In a nutshell, a contribution whatever be its scope, derives the required impetus from the persisting willingness even to the extent of stubbornness of the mankind, to explore the frontiers of human knowledge.
Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
---|---|---|---|
2024-06-16 | HAN YEBIN | 50 | view |
2024-04-02 | guozhishan | 50 | view |
2023-09-01 | Sovendo Talapatra | 50 | view |
2023-07-18 | Jonginn | 83 | view |
2022-11-04 | raghavchauhan619 | 83 | view |
- Scandals are useful because they focus our attention on problems in ways that no speaker or reformer ever could.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and supporting your position, be 66
- The following appeared in a letter from a homeowner to a friend."Of the two leading real estate firms in our town—Adams Realty and Fitch Realty—Adams Realty is clearly superior. Adams has 40 real estate agents; in contrast, Fitch has 25, many of whom 66
- "On Balmer Island, where mopeds serve as a popular form of transportation, the population increases to 100,000 during the summer months. To reduce the number of accidents involving mopeds and pedestrians, the town council of Balmer Island should limit the 66
- A nation should require all of its students to study the same national curriculum until they enter college.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoning for the position 66
- In any field of endeavor, it is impossible to make a significant contribution without first being strongly influenced by past achievements within that field.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement 75
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, hence, however, if, look, nevertheless, so, still, for instance
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 19.5258426966 77% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 12.4196629213 16% => OK
Conjunction : 21.0 14.8657303371 141% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 11.3162921348 115% => OK
Pronoun: 30.0 33.0505617978 91% => OK
Preposition: 101.0 58.6224719101 172% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 12.9106741573 139% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3229.0 2235.4752809 144% => OK
No of words: 603.0 442.535393258 136% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.35489220564 5.05705443957 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.9554069778 4.55969084622 109% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.29857124572 2.79657885939 118% => OK
Unique words: 321.0 215.323595506 149% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.532338308458 0.4932671777 108% => OK
syllable_count: 1021.5 704.065955056 145% => 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: 9.0 4.99550561798 180% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 3.10617977528 129% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.77640449438 169% => OK
Preposition: 10.0 4.38483146067 228% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 20.2370786517 104% => OK
Sentence length: 28.0 23.0359550562 122% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 61.2591239907 60.3974514979 101% => OK
Chars per sentence: 153.761904762 118.986275619 129% => OK
Words per sentence: 28.7142857143 23.4991977007 122% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.52380952381 5.21951772744 68% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 7.80617977528 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 15.0 10.2758426966 146% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 5.13820224719 39% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.83258426966 83% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.167273063795 0.243740707755 69% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.050900084764 0.0831039109588 61% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0589423565556 0.0758088955206 78% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0990911800946 0.150359130593 66% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0620407228457 0.0667264976115 93% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 18.1 14.1392134831 128% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 34.6 48.8420337079 71% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.4 12.1743820225 126% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.34 12.1639044944 118% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.87 8.38706741573 118% => OK
difficult_words: 185.0 100.480337079 184% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 11.8971910112 101% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.2 11.2143820225 118% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 75.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.5 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.