Claim: Researchers should not limit their investigations to only those areas in which they expect to discover something that has an immediate, practical application.
Reason: It is impossible to predict the outcome of a line of research with any certainty.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim and the reason on which that claim is based.
Limiting research investigations to only the areas in which expectancy of imminent practical application is high, will result in loss of vision among researchers. These people are the prophets of modern times, they think of the unthinkable and give us small insights on how our future is going to be. These researches are responsible for shaping our future. However, equal importance should be given to the researches that provide us with immediate practical applications. These researches have greater responsibility of eradicating the problems in hand. Without these short term researches people might keep suffering the apprehensive problems forever. Reasoning that outcomes of researches are unpredictable does not give cogent grounds to the claim.
To begin with, promising researches have to be categorical, they demand time, money and patience. It is difficult to conduct researches successfully that have immediate practical applications without any side effects. A research conducted in hurry is bound to have flaws. Take for an example, if scientist were forced to assemble a spaceship that would carry a team of astronauts to far galaxies at light year speeds, under a dead line of 5 years, we can guess how reliable the outcomes will be.
Secondly, researches tend to be interdependent, discoveries in any fields of science open new paths for researchers in other fields. For an instance, if a scientist discovers intergalactic medium that could send electromagnetic waves to other end of the universe in shortest possible time, other researchers would be able to send robotic explorations to gather environmental data from those heavenly bodies.
Moreover, If researchers would limit their goals to only immediate applications the future will be more uncertain. No one would be left to have any vision of how our world would be 2 or 3 decades ahead. Additionally, most of the fundamental theoretical findings had proven themselves against time. Few hypothesis might be proven wrong or misguiding in their time but years later people have accepted them like axioms. If Alan Turing had limited his wisdom to solve the decoding problem during world war, more lives would have been lost and we might be have been living in a world where computers were yet to be invented.
However, attending to imminent threats has equal importance. If all researchers in field of biology would work on thesis that might prove to be helpful in problems that we might face decades later, current disease and fatal viruses would founder the existence of human beings. Take for an example, the Zika Virus, prevention to this virus has the highest importance we cannot afford for it claim more lives.
Conclusively, short term and long term visions have to be given equal importance. They are the two sides of a single coin. Effacing any side will result in coin being useless.
- The best ideas arise from a passionate interest in commonplace things.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 you 50
- Some people believe that corporations have a responsibility to promote the well-being of the societies and environments in which they operate. Others believe that the only responsibility of corporations, provided they operate within the law, is to make as 66
- Write a letter to a friend to ask for his/her help to collect money for a charity organization. The letter needs to cover the following details.- why do you want to collect money for the charity organization?- Ask your friend to help- explain in detail ho 73
- A friend you met last year has invited you to visit them in their country. You have never been there before and need some information before you leave. Write a letter to your friend. In your letterRequest advice about a gift for his/her familyAsk about ac 73
- Some people think that more money should be spent on protecting endangered species while others think that it is awaste of valuable money. What is your opinion? 11
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 264, Rule ID: THE_SUPERLATIVE[2]
Message: A determiner is probably missing here: 'in the shortest'.
Suggestion: in the shortest
...etic waves to other end of the universe in shortest possible time, other researchers would ...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, however, if, moreover, second, secondly, so, in short, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 27.0 19.6327345309 138% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 21.0 12.9520958084 162% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 13.6137724551 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 32.0 28.8173652695 111% => OK
Preposition: 62.0 55.5748502994 112% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 16.3942115768 61% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2419.0 2260.96107784 107% => OK
No of words: 463.0 441.139720559 105% => OK
Chars per words: 5.22462203024 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.63868890866 4.56307096286 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.9410185638 2.78398813304 106% => OK
Unique words: 260.0 204.123752495 127% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.561555075594 0.468620217663 120% => OK
syllable_count: 751.5 705.55239521 107% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 4.96107784431 161% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.471057884232 0% => OK
Article: 2.0 8.76447105788 23% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 19.7664670659 121% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => OK
Sentence length SD: 58.4110791431 57.8364921388 101% => OK
Chars per sentence: 100.791666667 119.503703932 84% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.2916666667 23.324526521 83% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.04166666667 5.70786347227 53% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.67664670659 128% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.237250979921 0.218282227539 109% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0742046710567 0.0743258471296 100% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0643709238592 0.0701772020484 92% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.118787213754 0.128457276422 92% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0814547954484 0.0628817314937 130% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.8 14.3799401198 89% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 48.3550499002 108% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.197005988 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.0 12.5979740519 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.74 8.32208582834 105% => OK
difficult_words: 122.0 98.500998004 124% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 12.3882235529 73% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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: 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.