Critical judgment of work in any given field has little value unless it comes from someone who is an expert in that field.
In any job, the true analysis of a work can only be done by a person who is an expert in the field. I agree with this statement made by the author because an amateur or a viewer would never know the niceties the work to truly judge whether the work or the segment of the work done is correct or not.
Let us consider the medical field for our first example. The very idea of lacerating through wounds to heal it sounds very bizarre and is definitely a morbid notion for someone who is a newbie in the field of medicines. But conducting a surgery as such is a respectable task understood only by the doctors.
We see many times in news that some simple painting, so simple that we may even mistake it to be painted by a 5-year-old kid, gets sold at a price counting in millions. But, for a true consummate in arts, the value of millions may sound just, if not even meagre, for the meaning and story attached to that painting - the artist, the stroke of brush, the provenance and the stories attached to it, are what gives the painting its value, which laypersons like us would never understand.
Recently in Nepal, a local news reporter was criticized because he tried to defame a construction contractor for the work he did. What the reporter did was he checked the pavement thickness of a road at the sides and seeing that it was too low, he lambasted the contractor in his news show. However, after scrutiny from the authorities, it was found that the thickness was just right, and it was natural for pavements to have a low thickness at the sides. This example serves just right to prove that the critical judgement should be done by an expert and not by unknowledgeable people.
Summing it up, seeing the examples presented above, we can clearly say that the critical judgement of work should be relegated only to the sapients in the field. Just like a maths teacher cannot check history paper and vice versa, it's better we leave the scrutiny to the experienced and the experts.
| 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 |
- 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 position, be 50
- The best way for a society to prepare its young people for leadership in government, industry, or other fields is by instilling in them a sense of cooperation, not competition. 58
- Critical judgment of work in any given field has little value unless it comes from someone who is an expert in that field. 70
- Have North Americans become too dependent on the automobile for travel? 91
- The following recommendation appeared in a memo from the mayor of the town of Hopewell Two years ago the nearby town of Ocean View built a new municipal golf course and resort hotel During the past two years tourism in Ocean View has increased new busines 82
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 175, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'maths'' or 'math's'?
Suggestion: maths'; math's
... the sapients in the field. Just like a maths teacher cannot check history paper and ...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, if, may, so, as to
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 19.5258426966 82% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.4196629213 72% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 14.8657303371 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 11.3162921348 88% => OK
Pronoun: 31.0 33.0505617978 94% => OK
Preposition: 44.0 58.6224719101 75% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 12.9106741573 54% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1633.0 2235.4752809 73% => OK
No of words: 361.0 442.535393258 82% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.52354570637 5.05705443957 89% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.35889894354 4.55969084622 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.52287994797 2.79657885939 90% => OK
Unique words: 195.0 215.323595506 91% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.540166204986 0.4932671777 110% => OK
syllable_count: 504.9 704.065955056 72% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.59117977528 88% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 6.24550561798 112% => OK
Article: 6.0 4.99550561798 120% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.77640449438 113% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.38483146067 46% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 20.2370786517 64% => 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: 27.0 23.0359550562 117% => OK
Sentence length SD: 60.1500097144 60.3974514979 100% => OK
Chars per sentence: 125.615384615 118.986275619 106% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.7692307692 23.4991977007 118% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.0 5.21951772744 57% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 10.2758426966 78% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 5.13820224719 78% => 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: 0.192024344587 0.243740707755 79% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0708519574085 0.0831039109588 85% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0787520378005 0.0758088955206 104% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.105012141132 0.150359130593 70% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0737297345132 0.0667264976115 110% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.7 14.1392134831 97% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 60.99 48.8420337079 125% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.92365168539 39% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.1743820225 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 9.23 12.1639044944 76% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.08 8.38706741573 96% => OK
difficult_words: 71.0 100.480337079 71% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 11.8971910112 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.8 11.2143820225 114% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.7820224719 119% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.