In any field of inquiry, the beginner is more likely than the expert to make important contributions.
The statement made by the author is debatable, as the lens he has tackled this debate with, is awkwardly erroneous. While it is true that a great deal of competences is required in politics, economy, or engineering; some of these areas in which experience is even a prerequisite, I strongly believe that playing an essential role in all fields of inquiry is contingent upon the nature of the individual, independently of age and longevity. Only if imbued with steadfast curiosity and avid desire of knowledge, will a brilliant mind impacts his society.
Since childhood, we are conveyed that adults, also called people of experience, are the most likely to contribute wonders to our world. Daily life is also rife with situations where we ask for advices to our parents, or elder supervisors and counterparts, whom we retain they would bring valuable expertise, and feel a sense of déjà-vu. Indeed, the pundits, in policy making, are the only lauded and considered trustworthy to handle a country. Constituents purport that long-time services and a well-rounded cognisance of the state machinery is the must-mixture to best contribute to their nation.
One can't either ignore inherent tasks to branches of justice, and certain academia's works for which time is often an asset. Being judge, for instance, requires both humanity and impartiality, qualities that burgeon with experience. Math or archeology academicians sometimes reach their pinnacle after decades of arduous research. Business ventures call for the same solution: expert opinions are considered more valuable than those of a beginner. A person with better comprehension of market and its fluctuations, and efficient in handling myriad situations or people, will be regarded as worthy when decision making is involved.
History has however witnessed that contribution-making to many areas is timeless, and absolved of such boundaries. The advent of startups sheerly embodies the idea put forth by the author. Mark Zuckerberg or Steve Jobs, are entrepreneurs that have reshaped their respective fields by bringing new ways of thinking, despite a lack of experience. Two main explanations, common to disparate patterns, emerge from these innovations: ingenuity and a tendency to get off the beaten track. For instance, the freshness brought by young players on sports' pitches, or Stephan Hawkins' boldness when it comes to venture into the arcane subject of black holes, question the archaic idea according to which, the important advances would be bound to an experimented person.
As people get older, or delve deeper their field, they might get stuck into the non-unraveled conundrums concatenated to their inquiries. It then results in experts growing biased and blind, even in the face of what would be self-evident. Others might be starting to do the bare minimum, since their appetite for making important contributions to their areas turned mitigated. Therefore, beginners would act as a stimulus, or a new lease of life, to significantly contribute universities, enterprises and institutions.
To conclude, the dichotomy I humbly threw the light on, linked to contribution-making in any field of inquiry exceeds the parochial frame of time or experience.
- Governments should not fund any scientific research whose consequences are unclear 75
- Students should always question what they are taught instead of accepting it passively 83
- Educational institutions have a responsibility to dissuade students from pursuing fields of study in which they are unlikely to succeed 79
- The luxuries and conveniences of contemporary life prevent people from developing into truly strong and independent individuals 83
- Students should memorize facts only after they have studied the ideas trends and concepts that help explain those facts 83
Comments
The article is well…
The article is well articulated for someone to understand. But its hard to produce such results in the 30 minute timeline of the GRE exam.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 5, Rule ID: CANT[1]
Message: Did you mean 'can't' or 'cannot'?
Suggestion: can't; cannot
...est contribute to their nation. One cant either ignore inherent tasks to branche...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, however, if, so, then, therefore, well, while, for instance, it is true
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 19.5258426966 108% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.4196629213 72% => OK
Conjunction : 23.0 14.8657303371 155% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 11.3162921348 124% => OK
Pronoun: 33.0 33.0505617978 100% => OK
Preposition: 69.0 58.6224719101 118% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 12.9106741573 101% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2739.0 2235.4752809 123% => OK
No of words: 505.0 442.535393258 114% => OK
Chars per words: 5.42376237624 5.05705443957 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.74048574033 4.55969084622 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.15883233853 2.79657885939 113% => OK
Unique words: 316.0 215.323595506 147% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.625742574257 0.4932671777 127% => OK
syllable_count: 850.5 704.065955056 121% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 6.24550561798 64% => OK
Article: 7.0 4.99550561798 140% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 3.10617977528 161% => OK
Conjunction: 9.0 1.77640449438 507% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 6.0 4.38483146067 137% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 20.2370786517 109% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 23.0359550562 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 56.6678739136 60.3974514979 94% => OK
Chars per sentence: 124.5 118.986275619 105% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.9545454545 23.4991977007 98% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.72727272727 5.21951772744 71% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 4.97078651685 121% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 10.2758426966 127% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 5.13820224719 78% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.83258426966 103% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.217679863542 0.243740707755 89% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0471078562871 0.0831039109588 57% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0575327796332 0.0758088955206 76% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.101933585665 0.150359130593 68% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0640730061659 0.0667264976115 96% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.6 14.1392134831 110% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 40.69 48.8420337079 83% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.1 12.1743820225 108% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.45 12.1639044944 119% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.07 8.38706741573 120% => OK
difficult_words: 171.0 100.480337079 170% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.0 11.8971910112 126% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.2143820225 96% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.7820224719 93% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.