Any particular time period in the history of mankind tends to hold certain views about various things like nature, social behaviour, science, and these viewed will prevail as firmly accepted notions with incontrovertible evidences. Eventually, any slight deviation from these notions pointed out, although with factual evidences, will face resistance and will be treated with a snub attitude. The reason being these new notions are treated as outright disrespectful and deliberate attacks to the currently accepted wisdom.
Such disdainful treatments for new truths are not rare in the history. When Nicolas Copernicus has pointed about the existing flaw with Geo-Centric theory, instead of considering his thoughts, he was persecuted by members of the society and his notions are marked groundless. Further, the same is the case with Galileo when he talked about the nature of celestial bodies. The concerning authorities have gone such an inhumane extent to house arrest him and discourage him from carrying out his experiments which later went on to alter the way we perceive the universe. Similarly, when Darwin has put forth his principle of evolution, people have really become furious over mention of ancestral relations with chimpanzees. In this way history has provides us enough evidence that, truths, which are conspicuously a new perception will be a deviation from the existing wisdom will be treated uncomfortably and egregious, without recognizing their internal intentions and significance.
Interestingly enough, the reasons for such treatment of deviations are not much varied. Mostly it will be the authoritative people who are afraid such new notions and feel those as a desecrating elements to the society and consequently, they tend to bury these notions and inhibit such developments with all their means. Such scenario will often slow down the progress of mankind in many ways. For example, there are instances of inhumane rituals like early child marriage and forcing the widow die along with her husband had been under practice in several societies and social reformers who opposed such things stating their evilness, unjustness are often marked by people who are in the higher position in a society, as disrespectful people with ulterior motives. These are just to discourage those reforms and make their attempts futile.
In conclusion, a truth which is a blatant deviation from accepted norms of a society or a group have always faced and will face defiance and contentions from various things.
- woman in a white dress belongs to James McNeill Whistler. may be written by another painter 73
- Issue essay: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 p 66
- Twenty years ago, Dr. Field, a noted anthropologist, visited the island of Tertia. Using an observation-centered approach to studying Tertian culture, he concluded from his observations that children in Tertia were reared by an entire village rather than 78
- Men and women because of their inherent physical differences are not equally suited for many tasks 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 sure to address 75
- Important truths begin as outrageous, or at least uncomfortable, attacks upon the accepted wisdom of the time. 16
Transition Words or Phrases used:
consequently, if, really, similarly, so, for example, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.5258426966 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.4196629213 64% => OK
Conjunction : 16.0 14.8657303371 108% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 11.3162921348 88% => OK
Pronoun: 26.0 33.0505617978 79% => OK
Preposition: 55.0 58.6224719101 94% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 12.9106741573 93% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2141.0 2235.4752809 96% => OK
No of words: 396.0 442.535393258 89% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.40656565657 5.05705443957 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.46091344257 4.55969084622 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.84263471721 2.79657885939 102% => OK
Unique words: 229.0 215.323595506 106% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.578282828283 0.4932671777 117% => OK
syllable_count: 658.8 704.065955056 94% => 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: 5.0 4.99550561798 100% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 3.10617977528 129% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.38483146067 91% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 20.2370786517 74% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 26.0 23.0359550562 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 82.1449667086 60.3974514979 136% => OK
Chars per sentence: 142.733333333 118.986275619 120% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.4 23.4991977007 112% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.46666666667 5.21951772744 86% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 7.80617977528 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 10.2758426966 68% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 5.13820224719 136% => OK
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: 0.0456986033236 0.243740707755 19% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0193040556784 0.0831039109588 23% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0328820669324 0.0758088955206 43% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0359754838461 0.150359130593 24% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0273088952069 0.0667264976115 41% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.3 14.1392134831 122% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 36.63 48.8420337079 75% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.6 12.1743820225 120% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.39 12.1639044944 118% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.79 8.38706741573 117% => OK
difficult_words: 122.0 100.480337079 121% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 11.8971910112 97% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 11.2143820225 111% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Better to have 5/6 paragraphs with 3/4 arguments. And try always support/against one side but compare two sides, like this:
para 1: introduction
para 2: reason 1. address both of the views presented for reason 1
para 3: reason 2. address both of the views presented for reason 2
para 4: reason 3. address both of the views presented for reason 3
para 5: reason 4. address both of the views presented for reason 4 (optional)
para 6: conclusion.
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 16.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.