In this memo, the speaker claims that exposure to the influence of past achievement can attribute to making significant contribution within any field of endeavor. While I find this claim paradoxical on its face, the paradox is explainable, and the explanation is well supported empirically. Nevertheless, the claim is an unfair generalization in that it fails to account for other empirical evidence serving to discredit it.
A threshold problem of this claim is that its internal logic is questionable. At first impression it would seem that being influenced by past achievements is productive enough as it provides relevant exemplar when facing similar goals in that field. Yet one cannot have great deal of confidence in this, since no achievements are made by going through the same process with past achievements and it doesn't warrant the same success. It may help you to get close to it but it can also be regarded as imitation also.
Lending credence to this explanation for the paradoxical nature of the claim is sometimes doesn't fit to every situations. For example, smartphones used to be considered as just an item available in science fiction story. Yet, as Apple introduced iphone and opened a new era of smartphone, a slew of related companies started to make their own smartphones to compete with Iphones. As a result, Samsung, Blackberry, LG, Nokia and others put a great effort to their phone services and our lives are in the middle of digitally convenient environment. If Apple hasn't made such achievements, modern society would have not been developed such like this.
However, making a significant contributions are more honored when it goes through its indigenous path. To my knowledge, past achievements are exalted due to the audacity and success of pioneering neglected or undisclosed field and gave enlightenment in there. Even though the influence of past achievements may encourage many relates to be exuberant in their field, disputes in evaluating its real value of contribution is expected. For example, Samsung and Apple are still in their legal fight for several years with their own smartphone design patents. Both of their achievements are historical enough however, within their field, it seems both antagonistic to each other which also splits each of their loyal consumers by implementing negative marketing strategies by disregarding each other.
In sum, while at first glance exposure to the influence of past achievement can attribute to making significant contribution within any field of endeavor would seem mutually exclusive, it appears they are not. Thus the speaker's claim has some merit. Nevertheless, only just being influenced doesn't warrant the high value of contribution and forges doubts of its real value. In the final analysis, the correctness of the speaker's assertion must be determined on a case-by=case basis.
- The following appeared in a health magazine."The citizens of Forsythe have adopted more healthful lifestyles. Their responses to a recent survey show that in their eating habits they conform more closely to government nutritional recommendations than they 45
- The following is a letter to the editor of the Waymarsh Times."Traffic here in Waymarsh is becoming a problem. Although just three years ago a state traffic survey showed that the typical driving commuter took 20 minutes to get to work, the commute now ta 68
- Government officials should rely on their own judgment rather than unquestioningly carry out the will of the people they serve. 66
- Universities should require every student to take a variety of courses outside the student's field of study. 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 sur 34
- People should undertake risky action only after they have carefully considered its consequences. 83
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 401, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...e process with past achievements and it doesnt warrant the same success. It may help y...
^^^^^^
Line 3, column 510, Rule ID: ALSO_SENT_END[1]
Message: 'Also' is not used at the end of the sentence. Use 'as well' instead.
Suggestion: as well
...ut it can also be regarded as imitation also. Lending credence to this explanat...
^^^^
Line 5, column 92, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...oxical nature of the claim is sometimes doesnt fit to every situations. For example, s...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 558, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: hasn't
...itally convenient environment. If Apple hasnt made such achievements, modern society ...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 31, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[2]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'contribution'?
Suggestion: contribution
...this. However, making a significant contributions are more honored when it goes through i...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 8, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... by disregarding each other. In sum, while at first glance exposure to the in...
^^
Line 9, column 212, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
...lly exclusive, it appears they are not. Thus the speakers claim has some merit. Neve...
^^^^
Line 9, column 293, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...evertheless, only just being influenced doesnt warrant the high value of contribution ...
^^^^^^
Line 9, column 422, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'speakers'' or 'speaker's'?
Suggestion: speakers'; speaker's
... final analysis, the correctness of the speakers assertion must be determined on a case-...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, may, nevertheless, regarding, so, still, thus, well, while, for example, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 19.5258426966 113% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.4196629213 81% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 14.8657303371 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 11.3162921348 71% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 40.0 33.0505617978 121% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 73.0 58.6224719101 125% => OK
Nominalization: 21.0 12.9106741573 163% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2423.0 2235.4752809 108% => OK
No of words: 458.0 442.535393258 103% => OK
Chars per words: 5.2903930131 5.05705443957 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.62611441266 4.55969084622 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.05878052937 2.79657885939 109% => OK
Unique words: 252.0 215.323595506 117% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.550218340611 0.4932671777 112% => OK
syllable_count: 758.7 704.065955056 108% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 6.24550561798 48% => OK
Article: 6.0 4.99550561798 120% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 3.10617977528 225% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.77640449438 113% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 4.38483146067 182% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 20.2370786517 104% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 23.0359550562 91% => OK
Sentence length SD: 46.120565651 60.3974514979 76% => OK
Chars per sentence: 115.380952381 118.986275619 97% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.8095238095 23.4991977007 93% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.47619047619 5.21951772744 105% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 9.0 7.80617977528 115% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 14.0 10.2758426966 136% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 5.13820224719 97% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.83258426966 41% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.261983513884 0.243740707755 107% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0709966664704 0.0831039109588 85% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0851845003569 0.0758088955206 112% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.14678453309 0.150359130593 98% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0625122759007 0.0667264976115 94% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.4 14.1392134831 102% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.7 48.8420337079 85% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.1743820225 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.4 12.1639044944 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.02 8.38706741573 108% => OK
difficult_words: 126.0 100.480337079 125% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.5 11.8971910112 105% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.2143820225 93% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.7820224719 110% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.