We can learn much more from people whose views we share than from people whose views contradict our own.
The process of learning and maximizing our culture is extemely complex and so variegated that no general rule or no unique method for it have been ever designed. Throughout documents of our history, we can read about theoretical discussions recorderd by writers of every epoch (see the Roman Empire or the ancient Greece) on whether it is more pivotal to compare our own ideas with someone who shares them with us or, on the contrary, with someone who can contradict us. In the end, it seems generally more correct to deem that dialogue, by means of interactions between opposite views on a same topic, is the more productive way to enhance our cultur. We have several instances that can prove this position. Nevertheless, it is not wise to totally refute the proposed sentence: it is in fact also true that people who share our views can play a little but still important role in the activity of learning.
Ancient Greece is where a substantial part of our European culture was born. If we go back in time to the third century b.C., in Athens, we meet a prolific group of deep thinkers called "Sophistoi", literally "Savvy men". It is consistent to refer to them because of their precious and unique way of phylosophing: they founded the entirety of their thought upon the consideration that, through dialogue, using their language as a tool, they could effectively explore the nature of reality. As a matter of fact, they produced a plethora of books and observations that expressed fundamental new ideas and observations on our world. However, the secret of their productivity was only one: no matter where the dialogue is going, people must seek for the shrewdest way to prove the superiority of their ideas over the others'. This way, if the stated ideas were to be considered interesting and compelling, they would have resulted lucid and cogent after a discussion with anyone.
Back to our time, it is useful now to shift to Sicily. In the core of the Mediterranean Sea, Sicily has world-wide known pieces of arts that resemble the main features of a noticeable number of different cultures. The secret behind the artistic and cultural richness of Sicily is, in fact, its position: thank to the never-ending flux of ships back and forth to every port of the Mediterranean Sea, an amalgam of cultures and knowledges have come across Sicily. Thus, many writers, philosophers and artists of our past have compared their ideas, empowered their views on things, and engender a higher level tradition of culture. It is incontrovertible, hence, that from dialogue with people of different views we learn more than we would by comparisons with only people who only share with us similar ideas.
Someone could argue that this is not enough to prove that we learn "much more" from contradiction than from identically thinkers. It is only partially true. In fact, it does not sound coherent to say that we learn "much" more. By dialogue with people whose positions on certain topics we already know, we can, as a matter of fact, learn how to qualify the bases of our ideas and of our knowledge. It is the case of writers of the same writing school, like Realists of the 18th century, or it is the case of scientists of the same laboratories. This notwithstanding, no true novelty can be brought into someone's mind without the aid of others' cultures and wittiness. Isolated and far away populations are proof of this: poeple of the far north, in Russia, who have never encountered different cultures, are still exploring the most elementary of the philosophical ideals, while in Europe, place of intense cultural exchanges, we have a long-lasting tradition in deep thinking and variegated culture.
To conclude, our ancestors and thinkers, altogether with crucial examples of modern cultures, have bolstered the idea that discuss among people who have different opinions on the same topic is the best way to achieve a higher level of culture. Thus, it seems legit to almost entirely disagree with the author of the topic. Nonetheless, dialogue with similarly-thinking individuals can help us strengthen the roots of our reasoning.
- The council of Maple County, concerned about the county's becoming overdeveloped, is debating a proposed measure that would prevent the development of existing farmland in the county. But the council is also concerned that such a restriction, by limi 82
- The following appeared in a newsletter to Canbury’s residents from the president ofPlexma Motors.“I am pleased to announce that Plexma’s new manufacturing site is on schedule to opennext year. In addition to our regular line of cars, Plexma has also 27
- Claim: It is no longer possible for a society to regard any living man or woman as a hero.Reason: The reputation of anyone who is subjected to media scrutiny will eventually be diminished. 79
- Although innovations such as video, computers, and the Internet seem to offer schools improved methods for instructing students, these technologies all too often distract from real learning. 66
- We can learn much more from people whose views we share than from people whose views contradict our own. 70
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, hence, however, if, nevertheless, nonetheless, similarly, so, still, then, third, thus, while, in fact, as a matter of fact, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 24.0 19.5258426966 123% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.4196629213 97% => OK
Conjunction : 22.0 14.8657303371 148% => OK
Relative clauses : 21.0 11.3162921348 186% => OK
Pronoun: 72.0 33.0505617978 218% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 113.0 58.6224719101 193% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 12.9106741573 62% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3480.0 2235.4752809 156% => OK
No of words: 695.0 442.535393258 157% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.0071942446 5.05705443957 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 5.13447686263 4.55969084622 113% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.95890945769 2.79657885939 106% => OK
Unique words: 352.0 215.323595506 163% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.506474820144 0.4932671777 103% => OK
syllable_count: 1098.0 704.065955056 156% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 22.0 6.24550561798 352% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 4.0 4.99550561798 80% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 3.10617977528 161% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.77640449438 113% => OK
Preposition: 15.0 4.38483146067 342% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 26.0 20.2370786517 128% => OK
Sentence length: 26.0 23.0359550562 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 74.9001801216 60.3974514979 124% => OK
Chars per sentence: 133.846153846 118.986275619 112% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.7307692308 23.4991977007 114% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.80769230769 5.21951772744 111% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 7.80617977528 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 16.0 10.2758426966 156% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 5.13820224719 97% => 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: 0.326384005359 0.243740707755 134% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0795118412421 0.0831039109588 96% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0948614102434 0.0758088955206 125% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.176897457607 0.150359130593 118% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0970386296482 0.0667264976115 145% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.5 14.1392134831 110% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 45.09 48.8420337079 92% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 12.1743820225 110% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.07 12.1639044944 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.97 8.38706741573 107% => OK
difficult_words: 178.0 100.480337079 177% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 19.0 11.8971910112 160% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 11.2143820225 111% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 30 minutes.
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.