It has been said, "Not everything that is learned is contained in books"
Compare and contrast knowledge gained from experience with knowledge gained from books.
In your opinion, which source is more important? Why?
An opinion explains that knowledge will be widely acquired not only from books, but also from other resources. Hence, there are several differences regarding knowledge gained from experience and from books. In my standpoint, I personally stand for an argument of which books generate development in large part of personal skills.
Initially, books contain a large number of new areas in public interests which pervades all of criteria excluding people's specialisation. Society, therefore, would enhance their general knowledge and they are not limited into one specific skill to be seized on. Coinciding with a wide range of aptitudes, book readers' knowledge is encouraged in visual ability useful to forecast the possible circumstances in the long period of time since every reading activity creates imagination to picture the words to be real. As a result, attaining enlightenment from books is rather complete to face the brutish life.
Compared to the acquired knowledge from books, experience teaches people in a long time that needs trial and error to achieve the proper knowledge. It consume ineffective period of time and it clearly requires a myriad of financial resources in the process of learning. Subsequently, people tend to be specialised in particular ability that narrow the other valuable self-improvements. This condition occurs due to the fact that experience is usually gained in the sequence of conditions and therefore knowledge from experience is lack of variations in other general abilities.
To conclude, it is imperative for the vast majority of people to consider the merits of books and then they are able to utilise books as the most efficient means in order to possess a wealth of knowledge.