Governments should not fund any scientific research whose consequences are unclear.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, describe specific circumstances in which adopting the recommendation would or would not be advantageous and explain how these examples shape your position.
Scientific research is a source of new inventions. Here, prompt states that government should not provide funding to a research project whose functions are ambiguous. I mostly disagree with the statement and argue that consequences of most of the scientific research is not known in the initial state.
To begin with, the results and its application of a research project cannot be accurately predicted by the scientists beforehand. Usually, scientists research based on their passion and interest rather than the consequences of the research afterward. For instance, a scientist who has passion towards the cosmos will work on the particle physics related to the cosmos with out regard to the importance of the result from the research. So, for government to limit the budget on the scientific research project whose ambitions are unclear will not be prudent.
Furthermore, if the government limit the budget based on the consequences then it is imperative that scientific community will react to it by exaggerating the result and proving the result will have huge impact even if does not. This can be seen in the community where some results are over hyped. The scientists faking the data are now common to receive the grant or fellowship. Usually the research nature and its direction change with the findings of each stage, so final conclusion of the research are usually unknown or cannot be predicted. So when government decide to fund only the project with clear goal then the scientists will be forced to skew the data towards that goal and will try to make the project aligned towards initial goal even if the new goal seemed more accurate.
However, it can be argued that the research project which do not have a clear agenda will only waste the money and time of the government. For instance, if a research project goal is vague then it is prudent to restrict the fund for those type of the project and the money can be utilized elsewhere.
In conclusion, government should not restrict the fund on the basis of the consequences of the project as usually the project actual consequences cannot be accurately predicted beforehand and restricting budget on the basis of result will only lead to the over hyping of the results rather than beneficial research.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 98, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...prompt states that government should not provide funding to a research project wh...
^^
Line 5, column 369, Rule ID: WITH_OUT[1]
Message: This word is usually written together. Did you mean 'without'?
Suggestion: without
... particle physics related to the cosmos with out regard to the importance of the result ...
^^^^^^^^
Line 17, column 71, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ld not restrict the fund on the basis of the consequences of the project as usual...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
furthermore, however, if, so, then, for instance, in conclusion, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.5258426966 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 12.4196629213 129% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 14.8657303371 74% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 11.3162921348 97% => OK
Pronoun: 15.0 33.0505617978 45% => OK
Preposition: 46.0 58.6224719101 78% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 12.9106741573 93% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1909.0 2235.4752809 85% => OK
No of words: 379.0 442.535393258 86% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.03693931398 5.05705443957 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.41224685777 4.55969084622 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.74209641299 2.79657885939 98% => OK
Unique words: 163.0 215.323595506 76% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.430079155673 0.4932671777 87% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 579.6 704.065955056 82% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59117977528 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 6.24550561798 48% => OK
Article: 3.0 4.99550561798 60% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.38483146067 46% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 20.2370786517 74% => 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: 25.0 23.0359550562 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 67.5775768202 60.3974514979 112% => OK
Chars per sentence: 127.266666667 118.986275619 107% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.2666666667 23.4991977007 108% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.2 5.21951772744 100% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 7.80617977528 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 10.2758426966 39% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 5.13820224719 117% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.83258426966 103% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.163940080851 0.243740707755 67% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0703133187925 0.0831039109588 85% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0434049361507 0.0758088955206 57% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.113123827326 0.150359130593 75% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0453249542168 0.0667264976115 68% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.9 14.1392134831 105% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 54.56 48.8420337079 112% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.1743820225 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.25 12.1639044944 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.08 8.38706741573 96% => OK
difficult_words: 77.0 100.480337079 77% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 11.8971910112 67% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.2143820225 107% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.