It is better to have broad knowledge of many academic subjects than to specialize in one specific subject
At the infomation age, there is no shortage of information around us. People have access to vast and diverse knowledge pools. Thus, people are exposed to a variety of academic fields now more than ever. In such context it is the new trend among people, let alone academics, to study a spectra of fields rather than specializing in one specific field. I strongly believe that this is a good trend, and hence I agree with the claim that it is better to have broad knowledge of many academic subjects than to specialize in one specific subject. I will convey the reasons for my stand in the follwoing essay.
At present, the types of projects that are undertaken include a complex combination of several seemingly unrelated areas. Engineers, scientiests, architects etc. are compelled to engage in projects that reside in territories that conventional wisdom in their majoring field does not overlap with. For example, nowadays software engineers need to work on software for genetic research. Although an in depth knowledge on genetics is not needed in the task, a brief knowledge helps the software engineers to build accurate and efficient needed pieces of software. Due to this new nature of projects, the contemporary job market demands for candidates who has a broader knowledge on several fields, rather than specialization in one. Thus, it is clear how borad knowledge in several academic fields helps one to achieve more in the current job market.
Another reason to have broad knowledge in different fields is that the rate of fields dying off or transitioning. For example, the long time standing academic field of image processing is now dying off, due to the advent of deep learning. Deep learning is now undertaking tasks, that were previously done using image processing, more efficiently. Thus, a borad knowledge in many academic subjects allows an academic or a graduate for smooth transitions or shifts of fields, which is highly prevailant in the current day and age.
Thus, it is clear how, in the modern day academic society, it is important to have a broader knowledg on different academic fields. Specialization in one specific field on the other hand would prove to be disadvantageous, and such practice has now become almost prohibitive.
- Claim: An action is morally correct if the amount of good that results from the action is greater than the amount of bad that results from the action. Reason: When assessing the morality of an action, the results of the action are more important than the 50
- R. robustus 66
- The best way to solve environmental problems caused by consumer-generated waste is for towns and cities to impose strict limits on the amount of trash they will accept from each household. 75
- It is better to have broad knowledge of many academic subjects than to specialize in one specific subject 75
- Many lives might be saved if inoculations against cow flu were routinely administered to all people in areas where the disease is detected. However, since there is a small possibility that a person will die as a result of the inoculations, we cannot permi 69
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 284, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[1]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'a spectrum' or simply 'spectra'?
Suggestion: a spectrum; spectra
...g people, let alone academics, to study a spectra of fields rather than specializing in o...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 456, Rule ID: A_UNCOUNTABLE[4]
Message: Uncountable nouns are usually not used with an indefinite article. Use simply 'brief knowledge'.
Suggestion: brief knowledge
... on genetics is not needed in the task, a brief knowledge helps the software engineers to build a...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
hence, if, so, thus, for example, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 15.1003584229 113% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 9.8082437276 31% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 13.8261648746 58% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 9.0 11.0286738351 82% => OK
Pronoun: 20.0 43.0788530466 46% => OK
Preposition: 56.0 52.1666666667 107% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 8.0752688172 62% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1902.0 1977.66487455 96% => OK
No of words: 373.0 407.700716846 91% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.09919571046 4.8611393121 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.39467950092 4.48103885553 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.86517041943 2.67179642975 107% => OK
Unique words: 197.0 212.727598566 93% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.528150134048 0.524837075471 101% => OK
syllable_count: 594.0 618.680645161 96% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.51630824373 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 9.59856630824 63% => OK
Article: 5.0 3.08781362007 162% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 3.51792114695 28% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.86738351254 107% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.94265232975 101% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 20.6003584229 92% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 20.1344086022 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 43.1686764453 48.9658058833 88% => OK
Chars per sentence: 100.105263158 100.406767564 100% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.6315789474 20.6045352989 95% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.68421052632 5.45110844103 49% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.5376344086 36% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 11.8709677419 59% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 3.85842293907 78% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 9.0 4.88709677419 184% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.387784636902 0.236089414692 164% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.103376596245 0.076458572812 135% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.14745882675 0.0737576698707 200% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.241022534393 0.150856017488 160% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.131211713657 0.0645574589148 203% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.4 11.7677419355 105% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 58.1214874552 90% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.10430107527 144% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 10.1575268817 105% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.3 10.9000537634 113% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.6 8.01818996416 107% => OK
difficult_words: 95.0 86.8835125448 109% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 10.002688172 85% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.0537634409 95% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.247311828 88% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Better to have 5 paragraphs with 3 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: conclusion.
So how to find out those reasons. There is a formula:
reasons == advantages or
reasons == disadvantages
for example, we can always apply 'save time', 'save/make money', 'find a job', 'make friends', 'get more information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.
or we can apply 'waste time', 'waste money', 'no job', 'make bad friends', 'get bad information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.
Rates: 75.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.5 Out of 30
---------------------
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.