<s>[INST] Please grade the following essay on a 0-5 scale (5 being the highest):
In my opinion, specializing in one specific subject is better than having a broad knowledge of many academic subjects because of the nature of knowledge such as plentiness and complexity. Since the 17th century, many inventions were made. Information used to make these inventions and information provided by these inventions are accumulating such that noone alone can know all of these information. For example, in a typical university there are principal department such as natural science faculty, literature faculty, social science faculty etc.. All of these departments have also subdepartments. In my university, for instance, business administration, aconomics, international trade are subdepartments of social sciences faculty. A person can only attend only one of these subdepartments such that it is impossible to finish all of these departmens at the same time. So having a broad knowledge in many academic subjects are not that much possible. Another reason is the complexity of knowledge in any specific subject. When you want to cure an illness for example to cure the illness AIDS, you should specilize on viruses which are the cause of AIDS. Knowing many academic subjects such as optic, pschology, literature will not make any use to cure AIDS. Since you can only learn by doing it, specializing is better. Consequently, specializing is better than broad knowledge. [/INST] I would grade this essay a 2 out of 5 (0 included). To start off it has blatant uncorrected grammatical and spelling mistakes such as:

>  So having a broad knowledge in many academic subjects are not that much possible. 

'are not that much possible' is the wrong tense(?)


> you should specilize on viruses

It is spelled 'specialize'


Then there's the more abstract mistakes like redundant and boring sentences:

> Since the 17th century, many inventions were made. 

Gosh I'm so glad that this essay told me many things have been invented since the 17th century, I would just have no way to know otherwise.

> Since you can only learn by doing it, specializing is better.

I'm honestly not sure what this sentence means in connection with the previous sentences. It's a complete non-sequitur.

Then the arguments themselves leave something to be desired. For example:

 > In my university, for instance, business administration, aconomics, international trade are subdepartments of social sciences faculty. A person can only attend only one of these subdepartments such that it is impossible to finish all of these departmens at the same time. So having a broad knowledge in many academic subjects are not that much possible.

This doesn't actually demonstrate that these divisions are natural or that it's impossible to have insight which allows you to usefully perform all their roles at once. In fact, the possibility doesn't seem to have even crossed the authors mind. 

I award 2 points because the author's thesis is correct even if they don't argue for it particularly well. And they in fact attempted to support this thesis with suggestive arguments that a smart open minded person would be able to correct into the actual reasons.</s>