Aggrandizing the authority of the experts' power, the author makes a recommendation that only the critical judgements delivered from an expert could be valuable and useful while the others are meaningless. I generally disavow the argument because it extols the rightness of authority and thus may lead to the inhibition of innovation and revolutionary progress, instead, I suppose in most areas, critical judgements made by anyone could have positive and effective influences on the field.
On the one hand, the arguer considers the experts as unimpeachable and unassailable ones, which will result in inhibiting the creative ideas and promoting the monopoly of the judgement system. There are considerable instances in history that prove the critical thoughts given by nobody could be extremely valuable. Let's take Darwin as an example. By introducing the theory of natural selection, he demonstrated the flaws in the prevailing theory which considered the evolution is motivated by the animals' willingness. Surely, with the cogent evidences of birds' phenotype in an island, he made a judgement which can certainly be considered as critical. The new theory contribute enormously to the field, thus it is doubtful to say that only the experts could give useful judgements.
On the other hand, in certain areas which involve mandatory obeisance of the authority, such as the legal system; authority is determined to be unquestionable whatever the others think about them. If we be "critical" of the laws and thus have the reason for disobeying them, the country will be fragile and unstable. In Hobbes' most famous work Leviathan, he purposed a theory of social contract, which argued that people should not separate moral obligation from legal obligation because a country is established by the time people agree to follow the laws. As we can see above, in legal systems, as well as in military systems, the authority should be unimpeachable in order to maintain stability.
Also, in legal systems, I'm not suggesting inhibition of critical ideas, rather I am purposing that we should not let personal thoughts involve in expurgating our obligation. We can give advice to the experts or the legislations so as to bring out more fair and equal laws. In this aspects, my suggestion that thoughtful advice contributes a lot to the field is still valid in legal systems. It is only about changing the ways of giving recommendations.
To sum up, as I have cogently discussed above, we can see that in most areas, the critical thoughts made by non-experts could significantly contribute to the systems. Even in legal systems, we could give recommendations to the authority while not breaking the extant rules. As a result, the author's argument is proved to be dubious.
- Critical judgment of work in any given field has little value unless it comes from someone who is an expert in that field. 58
- Some people believe it is often necessary, even desirable, for political leaders to withhold information from the public. Others believe that the public has a right to be fully informed. 50
- Some people believe that government officials must carry out the will of the people they serve. Others believe that officials should base their decisions on their own judgment. 33
- Teachers' salaries should be based on their students' academic performance. 50
- The following appeared in a business magazine."As a result of numerous complaints of dizziness and nausea on the part of consumers of Promofoods tuna, the company requested that eight million cans of its tuna be returned for testing. Promofoods concluded 55
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 316, Rule ID: LETS_LET[1]
Message: Did you mean 'Let's'?
Suggestion: Let's
... by nobody could be extremely valuable. Lets take Darwin as an example. By introduci...
^^^^
Line 3, column 395, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...oducing the theory of natural selection, he demonstrated the flaws in the prevail...
^^
Line 3, column 499, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'animals'' or 'animal's'?
Suggestion: animals'; animal's
...dered the evolution is motivated by the animals willingness. Surely, with the cogent ev...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 25, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: I'm
...n stability. Also, in legal systems, Im not suggesting inhibition of critical i...
^^
Line 7, column 229, Rule ID: SO_AS_TO[1]
Message: Use simply 'to'
Suggestion: to
...vice to the experts or the legislations so as to bring out more fair and equal laws. In ...
^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 277, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'these'?
Suggestion: these
... bring out more fair and equal laws. In this aspects, my suggestion that thoughtful ...
^^^^
Line 9, column 292, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...king the extant rules. As a result, the authors argument is proved to be dubious.
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, if, may, so, still, thus, well, while, as to, i suppose, such as, as a result, as well as, to sum up, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 19.5258426966 87% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 12.4196629213 129% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 14.8657303371 67% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 11.3162921348 106% => OK
Pronoun: 28.0 33.0505617978 85% => OK
Preposition: 58.0 58.6224719101 99% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 12.9106741573 116% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2335.0 2235.4752809 104% => OK
No of words: 447.0 442.535393258 101% => OK
Chars per words: 5.22371364653 5.05705443957 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.59808378696 4.55969084622 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.10524373027 2.79657885939 111% => OK
Unique words: 226.0 215.323595506 105% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.505592841163 0.4932671777 102% => OK
syllable_count: 749.7 704.065955056 106% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 6.24550561798 160% => OK
Article: 7.0 4.99550561798 140% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 3.10617977528 161% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 11.0 4.38483146067 251% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 20.2370786517 94% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 23.0359550562 100% => OK
Sentence length SD: 61.4090774417 60.3974514979 102% => OK
Chars per sentence: 122.894736842 118.986275619 103% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.5263157895 23.4991977007 100% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.84210526316 5.21951772744 131% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 7.0 7.80617977528 90% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 15.0 10.2758426966 146% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 5.13820224719 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.83258426966 21% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.123243356285 0.243740707755 51% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0389674532142 0.0831039109588 47% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0392097075414 0.0758088955206 52% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0742951682386 0.150359130593 49% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0442746423576 0.0667264976115 66% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.9 14.1392134831 105% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 39.67 48.8420337079 81% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 12.1743820225 110% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.29 12.1639044944 109% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.19 8.38706741573 110% => OK
difficult_words: 125.0 100.480337079 124% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 21.0 11.8971910112 177% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.2143820225 100% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 70.83 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.25 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.