Critical judgment of work in any given field has little value unless it comes from someone who is an expert in that field.
Who should be the judge for perfectly evaluating a task performed in any field? Here, the author of the prompt advocates that experts are rightful and suitable to judge any type of work and judgement from lesser experts is superfluous. At the first glance it might be tempting to support the author however; i mostly disagree with the author's contention and defend my thesis based on two arguments. I also present concession when my theisis may be dramatically subverted in certain scenario.
Firstly, glancing at our glorious history of science, inventions and discoveries were mainly achieved by normal people rather than "expert" in that field. Even in past, critical judgement of expert, about new discoveries by fledgling inventors ,proved to be wrong in many instances. For instance, Albert Einstien rediculed the quantum theory to be unjustifiable but later admitted that he was wrong. Ironically, previously Newton --discoverer of Gravitational law-- was proved wrong by Albert Einstien after postulating special theory of relativity. So, retrospecting our history we get similar instances where judgement from the expert was presumptious.
Secondly, so-called "experts" tend to be dogmatic viewer and critic because of the knowledge they have acquired over the course of time. So, while making critical judgement the "experts" in field may judge the work on the basis of his ideology rather being objective. If the work aligns with his ideology then he champions the work but if the work is against his belief then he denigrades the work. For instance, when Gallelio, contrary to standard belief, asserted that sun is center of solar system not earth, experts of that time rediculed him because the idea did not matched with their own ideology. This proves that experts have ideology and their judgement is based on the ideology they inherit.
Admittedly, in some cases however, expert judgement is crutial. In scenario where there are limited experts in the field then critical judgement of those few experts is necessary. It is because the work could have negetive consequences and experts in the field can easily detect it.
In conclusion, the subject matter is moot and there are no easy verdict. But, glancing at juxtaposition of both opposing view, over reliance for expert in critical judgement does not hold water in most of the cases.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-01-26 | jinjer | 50 | view |
| 2020-01-19 | jason123 | 83 | view |
| 2020-01-11 | __annabelle__ | 50 | view |
| 2019-12-19 | cnegus | 50 | view |
| 2019-12-18 | ken10091995 | 50 | view |
- People's behavior is largely determined by forces not of their own making. 16
- The vice president of human resources at Climpson Industries sent the following recommendation to the company's president."A recent national survey found that the majority of workers with access to the Internet at work had used company computers for perso 75
- Scandals are useful because they focus our attention on problems in ways no speaker or reformer ever could. 66
- The following appeared in a memo to the board of directors of a company that specializes in the delivery of heating oil."Most homes in the northeastern United States, where winters are typically cold, have traditionally used oil as their major fuel f 39
- Society should make efforts to save endangered species only if the potential extinction of those species is the result of human activities. 62
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 160, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...s that experts are rightful and suitable to judge any type of work and judgement ...
^^
Line 1, column 337, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...hor however; i mostly disagree with the authors contention and defend my thesis based o...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 171, Rule ID: IN_PAST[1]
Message: Did you mean: 'in the past'?
Suggestion: in the past
... 'expert' in that field. Even in past, critical judgement of expert, about ne...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 254, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma, but not before the comma
Suggestion: ,
...t new discoveries by fledgling inventors ,proved to be wrong in many instances. Fo...
^^
Line 5, column 532, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...sun is center of solar system not earth, experts of that time rediculed him becau...
^^
Line 5, column 594, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[1]
Message: The verb 'did' requires the base form of the verb: 'match'
Suggestion: match
... rediculed him because the idea did not matched with their own ideology. This proves th...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 65, Rule ID: THERE_RE_MANY[3]
Message: Possible agreement error. Did you mean 'verdicts'?
Suggestion: verdicts
...ct matter is moot and there are no easy verdict. But, glancing at juxtaposition of both...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 217, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...es not hold water in most of the cases.
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, then, while, for instance, in conclusion, in some cases
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 19.5258426966 113% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 12.4196629213 48% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 14.8657303371 67% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 11.3162921348 97% => OK
Pronoun: 29.0 33.0505617978 88% => OK
Preposition: 53.0 58.6224719101 90% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 12.9106741573 108% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2018.0 2235.4752809 90% => OK
No of words: 379.0 442.535393258 86% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.32453825858 5.05705443957 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.41224685777 4.55969084622 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.99688065191 2.79657885939 107% => OK
Unique words: 216.0 215.323595506 100% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.569920844327 0.4932671777 116% => OK
syllable_count: 624.6 704.065955056 89% => 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: 2.0 4.99550561798 40% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 3.10617977528 97% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 4.38483146067 182% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 20.2370786517 94% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 23.0359550562 82% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 35.3598830547 60.3974514979 59% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 106.210526316 118.986275619 89% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.9473684211 23.4991977007 85% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.42105263158 5.21951772744 123% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 8.0 7.80617977528 102% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 10.2758426966 58% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 5.13820224719 156% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.83258426966 103% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.219923586445 0.243740707755 90% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0726326432953 0.0831039109588 87% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0649225302968 0.0758088955206 86% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.12846579465 0.150359130593 85% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0577264039491 0.0667264976115 87% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.6 14.1392134831 96% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 48.8420337079 107% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.1743820225 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.58 12.1639044944 112% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.0 8.38706741573 107% => OK
difficult_words: 106.0 100.480337079 105% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 11.8971910112 92% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.2143820225 86% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.7820224719 119% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.