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.
Science has always fascinated and aroused human curiosity. His pursuits for understanding science has not only served to quench the thirst of curiosity, but also led him to progress, often in ways which were not even dreamt of. The debate on the allocation of the economic resources on pure scientific research has long been debated. While the ratio of funds spend on various science projects should be decided after a scrupulous analysis, it will not always be right to cut on pure science projects even for allotting more to the humanitarian ones.
Space exploration, as exemplified by the author for a pure science endeavor, has got human utility at its end. While it might seem to some as mere interest of scientists to know about the planets or other celestial bodies in the universe, so far satellites have helped us to achieve a great deal of progress in communication. This does not just mean that people can stay connected and mails reach their dear ones fast. Utilising the prowess of the communication facilities, fields which were once thought totally unrelated to telecommunication has benefitted from it. Advanced medical advice can be sought by a doctor in remote areas of Africa by consulting with the authorities in the specific field of medical discipline, who are the other side of the globe. A resourceful educator could be made available to physically far classrooms, helping the students overcome the disadvantage imposed by their physical location. Accessibility to education and better health services are just two examples which undoubtedly serves towards humanitarian ends, which would not have materialized in the absence of advances in space technology.
Another major field which has benefitted from unrelated fields of science is agriculture. Weather forecasting has achieved an unprecedented progress, thanks to developments in climatic studies along with the achievements in space technology. Results include better agricultural planning and more yields. Also the disaster warning systems which can effectively reduce the loss of life and associated damages in the event of calamities such as Tsunamis and earthquakes are based on the results of studies across various disciplines including oceanographic research, geographical studies etc., which would seem as pure science endeavors when viewed individually.
On the other hand it is true that the scientific projects can take time for us to figure out how the obtained results can be utilised to attain a common good. There could be some other problems which requires our immediate attention, such as a recent disaster or the alarming increase of an unmitigated disease. Even though these situations must tempt to us to halt our effort on all other activities, which seems to meet no tangible human ends, and concentrate on the prevailing problems alone, ultimately it will leave us unprepared and even vulnerable to problems in the future. So it is necessary to value both and act accordingly.
The claim, even when based on noble intents, does not take into consideration the fact that the humanitarian science projects draws from and depends on the fruits of pure science endeavors of the past and cutting down one will eventually weaken the other.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 306, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Also,
... agricultural planning and more yields. Also the disaster warning systems which can ...
^^^^
Line 5, column 496, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... earthquakes are based on the results of studies across various disciplines inclu...
^^
Discourse Markers used:
['accordingly', 'also', 'but', 'if', 'so', 'while', 'such as', 'it is true', 'on the other hand']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.236983842011 0.240241500013 99% => OK
Verbs: 0.154398563734 0.157235817809 98% => OK
Adjectives: 0.11131059246 0.0880659088768 126% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0610412926391 0.0497285424764 123% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0305206463196 0.0444667217837 69% => OK
Prepositions: 0.125673249551 0.12292977631 102% => OK
Participles: 0.0520646319569 0.0406280797675 128% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.97571765697 2.79330140395 107% => OK
Infinitives: 0.032315978456 0.030933414821 104% => OK
Particles: 0.00359066427289 0.0016655270985 216% => OK
Determiners: 0.0933572710952 0.0997080785238 94% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0269299820467 0.0249443105267 108% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0233393177738 0.0148568991511 157% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 3252.0 2732.02544248 119% => OK
No of words: 518.0 452.878318584 114% => OK
Chars per words: 6.27799227799 6.0361032391 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.77070365392 4.58838876751 104% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.378378378378 0.366273622748 103% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.303088803089 0.280924506359 108% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.223938223938 0.200843997647 111% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.15444015444 0.132149295362 117% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.97571765697 2.79330140395 107% => OK
Unique words: 290.0 219.290929204 132% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.559845559846 0.48968727796 114% => OK
Word variations: 70.4164200313 55.4138127331 127% => OK
How many sentences: 20.0 20.6194690265 97% => OK
Sentence length: 25.9 23.380412469 111% => OK
Sentence length SD: 76.2434259461 59.4972553346 128% => OK
Chars per sentence: 162.6 141.124799967 115% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.9 23.380412469 111% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.45 0.674092028746 67% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.94800884956 101% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.21349557522 38% => OK
Readability: 56.2088803089 51.4728631049 109% => OK
Elegance: 1.68613138686 1.64882698954 102% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.346256833517 0.391690518653 88% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.0737431843011 0.123202303941 60% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0494260686225 0.077325440228 64% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.504619780192 0.547984918172 92% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.203060124046 0.149214159877 136% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.129023541781 0.161403998019 80% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0651357553391 0.0892212321368 73% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.350008908516 0.385218514788 91% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0723161029114 0.0692045440612 104% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.236841733277 0.275328986314 86% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0343503384994 0.0653680567796 53% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 10.4325221239 125% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 5.30420353982 113% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.88274336283 20% => More neutral sentences wanted.
Positive topic words: 11.0 7.22455752212 152% => OK
Negative topic words: 6.0 3.66592920354 164% => OK
Neutral topic words: 0.0 2.70907079646 0% => More neutral topic words wanted.
Total topic words: 17.0 13.5995575221 125% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: 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.