I disagree with the portion of the "Specialists of all kinds are highly overated" statement. Specialists are persons who take care of certain tasks or a specific area of whatever the case may be. These persons contibute more time and effort than those with general titles. the specialists are the ones who can tell or give the client more details on what is happening to them. The generalist can only give broad ideas which can be a number of things. The specialist narrows the ideas down to the specifics. For example if one goes to a "general practioner doctor" for pains in the chest area, he would tell the client that the poblem may be heart burns, or something else that's not be so serious, depending on the symptoms. He may also refer him to a cardiologist to be sure it's not any thing else. The point I'm making is that specialist are people who can help us out even more that our generalist. Also the fact that one would go to a specialist only in dire needs.
COMMENTARY
The response presents a position on the issue but the development of that position is seriously flawed. The writer begins by disagreeing with the assertion that "specialists...are highly over-rated" and then attempts to define and contrast specialists and generalists. The attempt is unsuccessful, partly because the descriptions are vague and ill-conceived.
Whereas the example of going to a "general practitioner doctor" is certainly relevant, the writer's claim that a general practitioner would tell a patient with chest pains that the problem "may be heart burns or something else that's not so serious" seems far-fetched.
The response is further weakened by poor word choice and by numerous errors in sentence structure, usage, and grammar. These problems, while not severe enough to seriously interfere with meaning, contribute to the overall rating of "2."
