We can usually learn much more from people whose views we share than from people whose views contradict our own.
The author in the issue states that we can learn much more from people whose views we share than from people whose views contradict our own. The author implies that two people, sharing common views can learn more from each other than the people who share contrasting views. I disagree with the author's views as there are many points that oppose the integrity of the statement. I will comply my views in the succeeding paragraph.
Initially, people share different point of view based upon different aspects and considerations. A person thinks that his views are strong unless he finds an evidence that undermines his assumption. Two persons sharing contradcitory views have their own assumptions regarding an event and eventually when they put forward their own views, they think about the integrity of contradcitory views and can change their mind if it seems more credible. In addition, by putting forth their views, they can even find the fallacy in their assumptions and hence can acknowledge it.
Moreover, when a person who is mistaken in his assumptions welcomes the contradictory ideas, it helps in correcting his misinterpretation. Now, I might present an example to support my stand. Mahendra Singh Dhoni, a well known cricketer in today's time, was a football lover in his childhood. One day, the cricket coach of his school was impressed by his goal keeping and asked him if he wants to join the school cricket team as a wicket keeper, but Dhoni refused the offer as he hated cricket. His coach convinced him to play cricket and then he found out that Dhoni was a good batsman too alongwith being a good wicket keeper. And today, Dhoni is the captain of the Indian Cricket Team.
Hence, it is evident from the above example that people can learn from the contrasting views. However, people sharing the same views can learn more than those sharing opposing views. The author's statement is seemingly true for people resembling to same fields. For example, a cricket player cannot learn strategies from a soccer player, or an engineering student cannot learn principles of engineering from a medical student. However, there are multiple reasons that refute the author's statement.
Considering the above discussion, I affirm that we can learn more from people sharing contradictory views than people sharing same views.
- 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. 62
- “The Smith Corporation should not be permitted to develop the land that is now part of the Youngtown Wildlife Preserve. This sanctuary is essential to the survival of the 300 bird species that live in our area. Although only a small percentage of the la 50
- "Over the past year, our late-night news program has devoted increasingly more time to covering national news and less time to covering weather and local news. During the same time period, most of the complaints we received from viewers were concerned wit 66
- "Critical judgment of work in any given field has little value unless it comes from someone who is an expert in that field." 50
- We can usually learn much more from people whose views we share than from people whose views contradict our own. 50
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 188, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
... than those sharing opposing views. The authors statement is seemingly true for people ...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 479, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...re are multiple reasons that refute the authors statement. Considering the above dis...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, hence, however, if, moreover, regarding, so, then, well, for example, in addition
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 19.5258426966 56% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.4196629213 97% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 14.8657303371 61% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 11.3162921348 133% => OK
Pronoun: 46.0 33.0505617978 139% => OK
Preposition: 36.0 58.6224719101 61% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 12.9106741573 54% => More nominalization wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1954.0 2235.4752809 87% => OK
No of words: 385.0 442.535393258 87% => OK
Chars per words: 5.07532467532 5.05705443957 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.4296068528 4.55969084622 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.67094080363 2.79657885939 96% => OK
Unique words: 196.0 215.323595506 91% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.509090909091 0.4932671777 103% => OK
syllable_count: 571.5 704.065955056 81% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59117977528 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 6.24550561798 144% => OK
Interrogative: 1.0 0.740449438202 135% => OK
Article: 7.0 4.99550561798 140% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 3.10617977528 32% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.77640449438 169% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.38483146067 68% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 20.2370786517 99% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 23.0359550562 82% => OK
Sentence length SD: 48.0388124333 60.3974514979 80% => OK
Chars per sentence: 97.7 118.986275619 82% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.25 23.4991977007 82% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.3 5.21951772744 82% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 10.2758426966 117% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 5.13820224719 39% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.83258426966 124% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.476892740941 0.243740707755 196% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.149202132367 0.0831039109588 180% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.214479182478 0.0758088955206 283% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.32483620799 0.150359130593 216% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.23563065073 0.0667264976115 353% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.1 14.1392134831 86% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 60.65 48.8420337079 124% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.92365168539 39% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 12.1743820225 78% => Flesch kincaid grade is low.
coleman_liau_index: 12.18 12.1639044944 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.94 8.38706741573 95% => OK
difficult_words: 82.0 100.480337079 82% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 11.8971910112 67% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.2143820225 86% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.7820224719 68% => The average readability is low. Need to improve the language.
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.