“Government should place few, if any, restrictions on scientific research and development.”
Scientific research and development assist a country to grow as a whole. Though they have a number of constructive advantages, they can be decimating for human beings at times. Therefore, I strongly agree that government should impose some constraints on scientific research and development, specifically on nuclear engineering and animal cloning.
To begin, research on nuclear engineering can be dangerous for the existence of people and other animals as well. Take the incident in Japan during World War II as an example, America attacked Hiroshima and Nagasaki (two nuclear cities of Japan ) in 1945 with the atom bomb, as a result, thousands of people were killed and both cities were completely destroyed. So, to stop such events in the future, scientific research like nuclear engineering should be banned.
Moreover, cloning animals is going to be another deleterious thing in the future; consequently, the number of crimes and populations will be increased. For instance, if people get the chance to clone themselves, they can use their clones to be involved in several crimes. Furthermore, the number of populations will be rocketed if people clone themselves. If this is what occurs, therefore, sanctions should be imposed on scientific research and development.
In conclusion, though scientific research and development are imperative for the growth of the countries and the people, considering the above issues -- decimation of nuclear bombs and cloning of animals -- restrictions on scientific research and development should be placed.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 244, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...and Nagasaki two nuclear cities of Japan in 1945 with the atom bomb, as a resul...
^^
Line 3, column 253, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...aki two nuclear cities of Japan in 1945 with the atom bomb, as a result, thousan...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
consequently, furthermore, if, moreover, so, therefore, well, for instance, in conclusion, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 19.5258426966 72% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.4196629213 72% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 14.8657303371 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 1.0 11.3162921348 9% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 9.0 33.0505617978 27% => OK
Preposition: 32.0 58.6224719101 55% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 9.0 12.9106741573 70% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1318.0 2235.4752809 59% => More number of characters wanted.
No of words: 238.0 442.535393258 54% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.53781512605 5.05705443957 110% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.92775363542 4.55969084622 86% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.09649219099 2.79657885939 111% => OK
Unique words: 133.0 215.323595506 62% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.558823529412 0.4932671777 113% => OK
syllable_count: 401.4 704.065955056 57% => syllable counts are too short.
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 6.24550561798 48% => OK
Article: 2.0 4.99550561798 40% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 3.10617977528 161% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.38483146067 91% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 11.0 20.2370786517 54% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 21.0 23.0359550562 91% => OK
Sentence length SD: 63.6450643403 60.3974514979 105% => OK
Chars per sentence: 119.818181818 118.986275619 101% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.6363636364 23.4991977007 92% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.27272727273 5.21951772744 178% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 10.2758426966 58% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 5.13820224719 78% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.83258426966 21% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.219945199892 0.243740707755 90% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.10495184526 0.0831039109588 126% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.11344698929 0.0758088955206 150% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.171001302014 0.150359130593 114% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.1065016414 0.0667264976115 160% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.5 14.1392134831 110% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.7 48.8420337079 85% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.1743820225 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.85 12.1639044944 122% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.19 8.38706741573 110% => OK
difficult_words: 68.0 100.480337079 68% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 11.8971910112 101% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.2143820225 93% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Better to have 5/6 paragraphs with 3/4 arguments. And try always support/against one side but compare two sides, like this:
para 1: introduction
para 2: reason 1. address both of the views presented for reason 1
para 3: reason 2. address both of the views presented for reason 2
para 4: reason 3. address both of the views presented for reason 3
para 5: reason 4. address both of the views presented for reason 4 (optional)
para 6: conclusion.
Minimum 250 words wanted.
Rates: 33.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 2.0 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.