Learning about the past has no value for those of us living in the present.
To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Technological advancements have evolved the living standards in this era. But, a majority believes that studying history is always beneficial. Whereas, on the contrary others avow that studying about the past has no importance in our lives. This essay strongly agrees with acquiring knowledge about the past and seeking lessons from the history.
At first, considering the importance of studying history in this modernized world, we would elaborate the atomic bombing in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The human being is propelling in the galaxies of science and technology, opening new avenues of advancement everyday. Discovery of atomic energy has been a historical milestone. This energy has caused devastating effects in South Korea, when atomic bombs were dropped. Studying history has a great impact in avoiding similar mistakes in present and future both. Also, it saves time, that could be spent in similarly failed experiments. The good and bad experiences and incidents from the past, hold lessons for the coming generations.
On the contrary, if no lessons are sought from the history, life is open to risks and benefits both. Meticulous experiments under controlled environment, must be planned and cautious approach must be taken. Studies prove that working in a free environment, with no compulsions and impending fears yields better results, but these experiments might have hazardous results.
In a nutshell, acquiring knowledge about history enables people to save their time from duplication of mistakes and avoiding failures documented in the past. Whereas, independent experimentation holds its risks and incidental fortunes both. More time must be dedicated to predict possible outcomes. Effective planning for risk mitigation which, is easier through studying history is required. Thus, history plays a vital role in minimizing loss and risk mitigation.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-01-13 | Adeola Nafisat | 61 | view |
| 2020-01-11 | Adeola Nafisat | 73 | view |
| 2020-01-05 | pbansal | 67 | view |
| 2019-12-06 | marin123 | 61 | view |
| 2019-12-06 | marin123 | 61 | view |
- The international community must act immediately to ensure all nations to reduce their consumption of fossil fuels e.g. gas and oil. 89
- Rich countries often give money to poorer countries, but it does not solve poverty. Therefore, developed countries should give other types of help to the poor countries rather than financial aid. 73
- Learning about the past has no value for those of us living in the present.To what extent do you agree or disagree? 67
- Too much money is wasted on exploring the oceans, this money will be better spent else where. Discuss both views. 73
- Some people believe that there should be fixed punishments for each type of crime. Others, however, argue that the circumstances of an individual crime, and the motivation for committing it, should always be taken into account when deciding on the punishm 67
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 144, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “Whereas” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
... studying history is always beneficial. Whereas, on the contrary others avow that study...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 258, Rule ID: EVERYDAY_EVERY_DAY[3]
Message: 'Everyday' is an adjective. Did you mean 'every day'?
Suggestion: every day
...ogy, opening new avenues of advancement everyday. Discovery of atomic energy has been a ...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, if, similarly, so, thus, whereas, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 13.1623246493 99% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 7.85571142285 76% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 10.4138276553 125% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 7.30460921844 82% => OK
Pronoun: 14.0 24.0651302605 58% => OK
Preposition: 40.0 41.998997996 95% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 8.3376753507 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1595.0 1615.20841683 99% => OK
No of words: 284.0 315.596192385 90% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.6161971831 5.12529762239 110% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.10515524023 4.20363070211 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.89696732098 2.80592935109 103% => OK
Unique words: 179.0 176.041082164 102% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.630281690141 0.561755894193 112% => OK
syllable_count: 496.8 506.74238477 98% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 5.43587174349 92% => OK
Article: 3.0 2.52805611222 119% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.10420841683 95% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 0.809619238477 124% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.76152304609 126% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 16.0721442886 118% => OK
Sentence length: 14.0 20.2975951904 69% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 29.98919473 49.4020404114 61% => OK
Chars per sentence: 83.9473684211 106.682146367 79% => OK
Words per sentence: 14.9473684211 20.7667163134 72% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.52631578947 7.06120827912 50% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.01903807615 40% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.67935871743 104% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 3.9879759519 201% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 3.4128256513 59% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.10205875427 0.244688304435 42% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0301074048354 0.084324248473 36% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0391367041681 0.0667982634062 59% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0663863479971 0.151304729494 44% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0451553976874 0.056905535591 79% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.5 13.0946893788 95% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.81 50.2224549098 97% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.3001002004 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.72 12.4159519038 119% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.89 8.58950901804 115% => OK
difficult_words: 100.0 78.4519038076 127% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 9.78957915832 82% => OK
gunning_fog: 7.6 10.1190380762 75% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 10.7795591182 93% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 67.4157303371 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 6.0 Out of 9
---------------------
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.