Critical judgment of work in any given field has little value unless it comes from someone who is an expert in that field.
There is a probable chance that a musician receives an opinion of his hard thought invested artful music composition in just couple of stringent parameters, like the scale of measurement on which the composition sounds interesting and melodious, the mood it sets or sometimes to an extent of judging the instruments played in the song by a naïve listener. To a so called judge, it would be nearly impossible to point out the flaws, the song may carry in regard to the theoretically wrong logical changing chords, the baas and the treble in the song mixing, the lessened innovation in usage of myriad instruments and probably many more parameters that would be necessary to aptly judge a song. Well, asking a naïve guy to provide the opinions will seriously be a wrong move and the composer is going end up with a wrong opinion.
For any field of an activity, reaching out to the experts to provide the insightful about the correct opinion to measure the efficacy and true report for it is correct step. The dilettante would seriously end up pointing out the spelling and grammatical mistakes in the beatific poem by a poet, rather than measuring the assertiveness of the cogent central idea it portrays. Similar would a designer of a building would end up collecting an opinion from a random person that it should have more windows rather than assessing the structural strength viability of the building by an engineer and ventilatically feasibility judgment by an architect. An individual is likely to lose a replete load of money in a share market, if his judgments are based on mere sheep heard opinions from naïve people rather than consulting it with a share market expert. Using the opinions from the people not an expert in a field would seriously hinder the measurement of the outcomes or provide a wrong opinion to the action taker.
To point out that the opinion from, say anybody, do help in providing an insight to a person ready to take an action. However, the discreet thoughts ripe in the expert brains. The expert in a field is aware of all the pros and cons that an action carries and measuring all the parameters, a true opinions comes out which specifically tends to improve the outcome of the actions taken.
| 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 |
- Critical judgment of work in any given field has little value unless it comes from someone who is an expert in that field. 50
- People should undertake risky action only after they have carefully considered its consequences. 16
- As people rely on more and more technology to solve problems, the ability of humans to think for themselves will surely deteriorate. 58
- Colleges and universities should require their students to spend at least one semester studying in a foreign country. 50
- In any field of inquiry, the beginner is more likely than the expert to make important contributions.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. I 50
Comments
"the discreet thoughts ripe
"the discreet thoughts ripe in the expert brains" really? Use simple english to convey the meaning as it is more important to write a cogent argument. Also, just a suggestion, why don't you write and introduction, then body and then conclusion in different paragraphs?
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 296, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'opinions'' or 'opinion's'?
Suggestion: opinions'; opinion's
...nd measuring all the parameters, a true opinions comes out which specifically tends to i...
^^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['however', 'if', 'may', 'so', 'well', 'in regard to']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.250608272506 0.240241500013 104% => OK
Verbs: 0.126520681265 0.157235817809 80% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0948905109489 0.0880659088768 108% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0413625304136 0.0497285424764 83% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0194647201946 0.0444667217837 44% => OK
Prepositions: 0.119221411192 0.12292977631 97% => OK
Participles: 0.0389294403893 0.0406280797675 96% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.74446744068 2.79330140395 98% => OK
Infinitives: 0.036496350365 0.030933414821 118% => OK
Particles: 0.0170316301703 0.0016655270985 1023% => OK
Determiners: 0.170316301703 0.0997080785238 171% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.021897810219 0.0249443105267 88% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.00729927007299 0.0148568991511 49% => Some subClauses wanted starting by 'Which, Who, What, Whom, Whose.....'
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2234.0 2732.02544248 82% => OK
No of words: 386.0 452.878318584 85% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.78756476684 6.0361032391 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.43248042346 4.58838876751 97% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.360103626943 0.366273622748 98% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.261658031088 0.280924506359 93% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.183937823834 0.200843997647 92% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.10621761658 0.132149295362 80% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.74446744068 2.79330140395 98% => OK
Unique words: 196.0 219.290929204 89% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.507772020725 0.48968727796 104% => OK
Word variations: 55.2644291138 55.4138127331 100% => OK
How many sentences: 11.0 20.6194690265 53% => OK
Sentence length: 35.0909090909 23.380412469 150% => OK
Sentence length SD: 86.1810510131 59.4972553346 145% => OK
Chars per sentence: 203.090909091 141.124799967 144% => OK
Words per sentence: 35.0909090909 23.380412469 150% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.545454545455 0.674092028746 81% => OK
Paragraphs: 3.0 4.94800884956 61% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 1.0 5.21349557522 19% => OK
Readability: 61.2567121997 51.4728631049 119% => OK
Elegance: 2.18181818182 1.64882698954 132% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.188212535461 0.391690518653 48% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.170740532226 0.123202303941 139% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0601470685069 0.077325440228 78% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.641237247977 0.547984918172 117% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.138726498812 0.149214159877 93% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.110859699448 0.161403998019 69% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0419739564116 0.0892212321368 47% => The sentences are too close to each other.
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.59922605515 0.385218514788 156% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0143775400855 0.0692045440612 21% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.165487666134 0.275328986314 60% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0318239391091 0.0653680567796 49% => The ideas may be duplicated in paragraphs.
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 10.4325221239 58% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 5.30420353982 75% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.88274336283 20% => More neutral sentences wanted.
Positive topic words: 6.0 7.22455752212 83% => OK
Negative topic words: 3.0 3.66592920354 82% => OK
Neutral topic words: 0.0 2.70907079646 0% => More neutral topic words wanted.
Total topic words: 9.0 13.5995575221 66% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: This is not the final score. 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.