Many important discoveries or creations are accidental: it is usually while seeking the answer to one question that we come across the answer to another.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position.
Some may account a research result as an accidental finding since the finding is not the answer to the aimed objective. However, in my stance, I do not agree that the related findings are accidental. For the following reasons, I support that they are some questions needed to be solved to conquer the main myths.
First of all, the desired results cannot be found without solving the related problems, so the peripheral findings are not accidental, but are must-do as a requirement for the expected issues. The peripheral discoveries are related to the main issue. Then, researchers must solve all the obstructions which merge continuously in the whole research until they obtain the things they want for. Therefore, they are not out of anticipate. On the contrary, they are aimed to be solved, too. To illustrate, to deal with the economy depression, economists need to figure out the resolution for high unemployment.
Moreover, many creations are discovered without the desired result, and then researchers use them on the other applications, which renders the creations look like discovered accidentally, but which is not. Without human intelligence and efforts to find a new field which suitable for those findings, those findings would not be so useful. For instance, plastic surgery was served to patients who have severe injured and rebuild their bodies. Nowadays, people call it cosmetic surgery and it uses to bolster people's beauty. Had its purpose not diverted, cosmetic surgery would not become extremely popular now.
Finally, the unanticipated discovery is just one branch or really a small branch of the major question. Since the surprising findings must be the things included in the whole project for another main problem, the surprising findings cannot be categorized as an accident. Hence, no matter branches or major findings, they are all parts of the whole project.
To sum up, there are few research results could be contributed to accidents. Most of they are on the path of the main issue, and then they are aimed to be conquered, too.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-10-25 | batterylow_123 | 50 | view |
| 2023-10-15 | Omar Ibna Nazim | 16 | view |
| 2023-08-02 | okazaki11 | 80 | view |
| 2023-07-26 | jayauen | 83 | view |
| 2023-02-10 | Yam Kumar Oli | 58 | view |
- The following is part of a memorandum from the president of Humana University."Last year the number of students who enrolled in online degree programs offered by nearby Omni University increased by 50 percent. During the same year, Omni showed a significa 60
- Some people believe it is often necessary, even desirable, for political leaders to withhold information from the public. Others believe that the public has a right to be fully informed.Write a response in which you discuss which view more closely aligns 50
- The following recommendation was made by the president and administrative staff of Grove College a private institution to the college s governing committee Recently there have been discussions about ending Grove College s century old tradition of all fema 27
- SuperCorp recently moved its headquarters to Corporateville. The recent surge in the number of homeowners in Corporateville proves that Corporateville is a superior place to live than Middlesburg, the home of SuperCorp's current headquarters. Moreover, Mi 70
- Humans arrived in the Kaliko Islands about 7,000 years ago, and within 3,000 years most of the large mammal species that had lived in the forests of the Kaliko Islands were extinct. Previous archaeological findings have suggested that early humans general 50
Comments
Essay evaluation report
a new field which suitable for those findings
a new field which is suitable for those findings
----------------
argument 1 -- OK
argument 2 -- OK
argument 3 -- OK
----------------
flaws:
No. of Words: 337 350
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 1 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 19 15
No. of Words: 337 350
No. of Characters: 1675 1500
No. of Different Words: 184 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.285 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.97 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.677 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 124 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 99 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 63 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 37 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 17.737 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.471 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.684 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.281 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.522 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.056 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 10, Rule ID: MASS_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Possible agreement error - use third-person verb forms for singular and mass nouns: 'accounts'.
Suggestion: accounts
Some may account a research result as an accidental find...
^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['but', 'finally', 'first', 'hence', 'however', 'look', 'may', 'moreover', 'really', 'so', 'then', 'therefore', 'for instance', 'first of all', 'on the contrary', 'to sum up']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.18961038961 0.240241500013 79% => OK
Verbs: 0.176623376623 0.157235817809 112% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0987012987013 0.0880659088768 112% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0675324675325 0.0497285424764 136% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0415584415584 0.0444667217837 93% => OK
Prepositions: 0.0883116883117 0.12292977631 72% => OK
Participles: 0.0467532467532 0.0406280797675 115% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.7985609831 2.79330140395 100% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0363636363636 0.030933414821 118% => OK
Particles: 0.00519480519481 0.0016655270985 312% => Less particles wanted.
Determiners: 0.111688311688 0.0997080785238 112% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0207792207792 0.0249443105267 83% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.012987012987 0.0148568991511 87% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2069.0 2732.02544248 76% => OK
No of words: 337.0 452.878318584 74% => More words wanted.
Chars per words: 6.13946587537 6.0361032391 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.28457229495 4.58838876751 93% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.379821958457 0.366273622748 104% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.314540059347 0.280924506359 112% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.19881305638 0.200843997647 99% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.139465875371 0.132149295362 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.7985609831 2.79330140395 100% => OK
Unique words: 187.0 219.290929204 85% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.554896142433 0.48968727796 113% => OK
Word variations: 60.3757613981 55.4138127331 109% => OK
How many sentences: 19.0 20.6194690265 92% => OK
Sentence length: 17.7368421053 23.380412469 76% => OK
Sentence length SD: 43.4957252652 59.4972553346 73% => OK
Chars per sentence: 108.894736842 141.124799967 77% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.7368421053 23.380412469 76% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.842105263158 0.674092028746 125% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.94800884956 101% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.21349557522 19% => OK
Readability: 49.19084804 51.4728631049 96% => OK
Elegance: 1.13636363636 1.64882698954 69% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.45371145993 0.391690518653 116% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.112423135705 0.123202303941 91% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0662934053829 0.077325440228 86% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.55247368287 0.547984918172 101% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.134922083729 0.149214159877 90% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.175075669676 0.161403998019 108% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0878198745303 0.0892212321368 98% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.302996610684 0.385218514788 79% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.155439893623 0.0692045440612 225% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.290798711523 0.275328986314 106% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0637099469995 0.0653680567796 97% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 10.4325221239 58% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 5.30420353982 170% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.88274336283 82% => OK
Positive topic words: 4.0 7.22455752212 55% => OK
Negative topic words: 6.0 3.66592920354 164% => OK
Neutral topic words: 1.0 2.70907079646 37% => OK
Total topic words: 11.0 13.5995575221 81% => OK
---------------------
Rates: 54.17 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.25 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations to cover all aspects.