Government funding for pure science endeavors, such as space exploration, should be reduced in order to
direct more funding towards humanitarian science projects.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In
developing and supporting your position, be sure to consider specific instances for which this statement
may or may not be true.
The author claims that humanitarian science projects should be prioritized over pure science
projects, to the point of redirecting funding from pure science to humanitarian science. There are perhaps
some instances in which this would be judicious, but in the absence of any discussion of the goals for such
funding and the possible benefits to be obtained, such a black-and-white policy is likely too simplistic.
Further, the author appears to assume that this is a zero-sum game: that such funding must go to one or the
other and that the same amount of funding will be “worth more” by some (unspecified) measure if spent on
humanitarian projects.
It would be helpful to examine specific cases in order to make this abstract argument a bit more
concrete. “Humanitarian” is a broad term, but let’s assume that the author is referring to projects that will
provide healthcare or education to communities currently lacking such services in some significant way.
(The term humanitarian could, of course, refer to many other types of research, community outreach
programs, and so on — but we’re trying to discuss one tangible example.) Vaccinating children against
smallpox and measles is an obviously high-priority task: the technology exists, it is not prohibitively
expensive, and it will both save lives and improve quality of life immeasurably. In any prioritization of
funds, this particular usage must be near the top.
It is also the case, though, that many technologies originally developed during space exploration
projects are now used in mission-critical “humanitarian” arenas. For instance, remote monitoring of vital
statistics (such as heart rate and blood pressure) via miniature devices that can be affixed to or implanted
in the body — or even swallowed! — allows us to monitor someone’s health when that person is not
physically in a healthcare setting. Other miniature remote-controlled devices (robots, if you will) are used
in surgical settings to minimize the invasiveness of the procedure, or even to perform a maneuver that is
impossible with traditional surgery. Satellite networks allows us to monitor weather patterns and broadcast
information about the approaching hurricane immediately, potentially saving tens of thousands of lives.
Further, it isn’t necessarily sufficient to look at the goals and expected benefits in the short-term.
When NASA scientists were developing ways to monitor the health and manage the treatment of astronauts
from afar, they likely weren’t anticipating the myriad ways in which the technology would ultimately be
used “on Earth.” Early photovoltaic technology was developed almost exclusively in space because access
to the sun’s rays was free and easy. Decades later, solar cells are a leading source of terrestrial “clean”
energy and one of the leading candidates to replace fossil fuel energy should we one day find ourselves in
the position of running out of Earth-based energy sources.
Any approach, then, that paints all “humanitarian” projects with one broad stroke (“worthwhile”) and
“pure science” projects with another (“less important”) is too crude an approach to make such very
nuanced decisions. Given limited funds, of course priorities will have to be determined and a tough balance
struck. History demonstrates convincingly, however, that what begins as a “pure science” project might
one day prove to be a “humanitarian” effort that can affect the lives of every person on the planet.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 37, column 73, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'an' instead of 'a' if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g. 'an article', 'an hour'
Suggestion: an
...vincingly, however, that what begins as a 'pure science' project might ...
^
Line 38, column 21, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'an' instead of 'a' if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g. 'an article', 'an hour'
Suggestion: an
...pos; project might one day prove to be a 'humanitarian' effort that ca...
^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'but', 'however', 'if', 'look', 'so', 'then', 'while', 'for instance', 'of course', 'such as']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.248529411765 0.25644967241 97% => OK
Verbs: 0.139705882353 0.15541462614 90% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0941176470588 0.0836205057962 113% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0485294117647 0.0520304965353 93% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0191176470588 0.0272364105082 70% => OK
Prepositions: 0.0970588235294 0.125424944231 77% => OK
Participles: 0.0367647058824 0.0416121511921 88% => OK
Conjunctions: 3.63076895949 2.79052419416 130% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0338235294118 0.026700313972 127% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.0808823529412 0.113004496875 72% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0235294117647 0.0255425247493 92% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0132352941176 0.0127820249294 104% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 3633.0 2731.13054187 133% => OK
No of words: 543.0 446.07635468 122% => OK
Chars per words: 6.69060773481 6.12365571057 109% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.82725184711 4.57801047555 105% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.425414364641 0.378187486979 112% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.348066298343 0.287650121315 121% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.261510128913 0.208842608468 125% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.195211786372 0.135150697306 144% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.63076895949 2.79052419416 130% => OK
Unique words: 304.0 207.018472906 147% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.55985267035 0.469332199767 119% => OK
Word variations: 71.4609509097 52.1807786196 137% => OK
How many sentences: 19.0 20.039408867 95% => OK
Sentence length: 28.5789473684 23.2022227129 123% => OK
Sentence length SD: 69.1499634962 57.7814097925 120% => OK
Chars per sentence: 191.210526316 141.986410481 135% => OK
Words per sentence: 28.5789473684 23.2022227129 123% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.578947368421 0.724660767414 80% => OK
Paragraphs: 35.0 5.14285714286 681% => There are something wrong with the essay format.
Language errors: 2.0 3.58251231527 56% => OK
Readability: 63.3855772027 51.9672348444 122% => OK
Elegance: 1.84397163121 1.8405768891 100% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.300395199038 0.441005458295 68% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.0748695885239 0.135418324435 55% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0539256397243 0.0829849096947 65% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.801947014518 0.58762219726 136% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.273024877781 0.147661913831 185% => Sentences are changing often in a paragraphs.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.126551858884 0.193483328276 65% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0758640012149 0.0970749176394 78% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.0870321166761 0.42659136922 20% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.096621919737 0.0774707102158 125% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.101071975261 0.312017818177 32% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0609890331578 0.0698173142475 87% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.33743842365 132% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 6.87684729064 29% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.82512315271 124% => OK
Positive topic words: 8.0 6.46551724138 124% => OK
Negative topic words: 1.0 5.36822660099 19% => More negative topic words wanted.
Neutral topic words: 4.0 2.82389162562 142% => OK
Total topic words: 13.0 14.657635468 89% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 Out of 6 -- The score is based on the average performance of 20,000 argument essays. This e-grader is not smart enough to check on arguments.
---------------------
Note: This is not the final score. 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.