Please evaluate my issue essay

[kraft79]

Please eval my issue essay and assign a potential score

Thanks

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. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position.


I disagree with the statement that in any field of inquiry , the beginner is more likely than the expert to make important contributions. I feel this way because experts have a deeper passion, increased knowledge, and better networking skills than a beginner. For these reasons , the expert is more likely to make important contributions in any field of inquiry.

The first reason why experts are more likely to make important contributions in any field of inquiry is due to their passion. One does not become an expert without the passion and love for their specific field. It is this passion that causes experts to eat ,sleep, and live their discipline. A recent article in Scientific America illustrated the works of Dr. Bruce Fife. Dr. fife wrote a book about the benefits of consuming coconut oil. During his research , Dr. Fife lived in a tent on a remote island in the south pacific. He went without running water and essential amenities for months. Without a deep passion for nutrition, Dr Fife’s book would have never been written.

The second reason why experts are more likely to make important contributions is due to the fact that they have more time invested in their specific field. During this time experts are able to study, and identify various theories, laws etc. With this knowledge, an expert is able to build on successful research and not waste their time on unproven research. A beginner is more likely to invest their time on a theory that could have been rejected in the past. The beginner could have the upper hand in terms of technology. Using the web, multimedia, and social media might allow a beginner to streamline their research.

The third reason why experts are more likely than a beginner to make a signifigant contribution is due to the fact that experts have better marketing and networking skills. One of the most difficult aspects of proving a theory is generating funds to support the research . An expert is more likely to know the types of people and institutions that will provide research grants. A recent article in The New Yorker broke down the dollar amounts that have been invested to fund a project to save the rainforests. The article went into great detail about how the head research scientist flew all over the world to attend fund raisers, meet and greets, and to shake hands will potential investors. It would be very difficult for a beginning researcher to match that achievement.

In conclusion, when it comes to making important contributions in any field of inquiry, an expert has the upper hand over the beginner. I feel this due to the expert’s passion, experience, and networking abilities.

[tommywallach]

Hey Kraft,

Great structure and writing here, but I would take a bit of issue with some of the content. I think your first paragraph is actually weakest. No proof is given here to say why experts are more passionate than beginners. Why would that be true? Anyone can be passionate.

The same problem can be said to exist in your third paragraph. There's no reason why experts would be better networkers than beginners. Now, if you focus entirely on the fact that they've had more time in the field to DEVELOP networks, that's a better point, but then you still need to explain why that will make them more likely to come up with new stuff.

I think your problem here is not using real-world examples. Your made-up examples are fine, but too specific. Why not talk about actual fields of study: literature, science, mathematics...or even actual famous people. Also, I do not see where you responded to the prompt, which asked you to discuss areas where your thesis MIGHT NOT be true (such as the arts?).

Make sense?

-t