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.
Nowadays, thanks to advances in technology and research methodologies, governments and people are relying to the results of the scientific researches more than past since not only authorities are allocating a significant share of the annual budget to the member of faculties in universities but also many private associations have progressive efforts to supply the scientists' financial needs. The author suggests that if there is not any indicated results for the results of the researchers, it is better for governments to hold back their investments on these researches. I mostly disagree with this recommendation because of two reason.
To begin with, the nature of the science is based on the theories and inscribed in an incessant circle. Relying on the consequences of the past researchers, a scientist makes some assumptions and start his experiments. Obviously, there are some conjectured results for the research, however, any evidence for the absolute occurrence of the results is not presented. For example, consider that after the spreading COVID-19, the governments would not invest on the researches helped in producing the vaccine for this Coronavirus because they were not sure about the efficiency of the vaccine or its negative side effects in human beings. As a result of not funding the medical researches, more people would have died or hospitalized and subsequently, the economics in various countries would have put in a critical situation. Therefore, the scientific discoveries are chronologically related to each other and also most of them do not have clear results. If authorities avoid investing on the academic researches, improvement in various scientific subjects for the next generation would be stopped.
Furthermore, looking at history, when the governors were relied on the power of the church,many scientists had established their own laboratories in the basement of their houses. People used to laugh at them or not to take their speeches seriously. I mean that, nothing can be stop the processes of growth in science. The researchers would still put their efforts to experiment their theories in a smaller scope. However, in this case the efficiency of the results may not be generalized for a bigger scales.In addition, if there are some noxious consequences, they would not appear in a small scale and applying them in large samples may brings about worse occurrence.
In contrast, some people may say that many deleterious things in word such as fatal weapons or toxic materials would not have produced if the authorities had not funded the scientists. Unfortunately, I want to say that many destructive researches have been ordered by the governments to gain more power in the world. The more a country reaches the advanced weapons of war, like nuclear bombs or missiles, the more be able to rule the world these days.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 1085, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...c subjects for the next generation would be stopped. Furthermore, looking at hi...
^^
Line 3, column 91, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma
Suggestion: , many
...s were relied on the power of the church,many scientists had established their own la...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 509, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: In
... not be generalized for a bigger scales.In addition, if there are some noxious con...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, furthermore, however, if, look, may, so, still, therefore, for example, i mean, in addition, in contrast, such as, as a result, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 19.5258426966 82% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.4196629213 89% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 14.8657303371 87% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 11.3162921348 53% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 27.0 33.0505617978 82% => OK
Preposition: 65.0 58.6224719101 111% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 12.9106741573 93% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2406.0 2235.4752809 108% => OK
No of words: 458.0 442.535393258 103% => OK
Chars per words: 5.25327510917 5.05705443957 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.62611441266 4.55969084622 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.08382906728 2.79657885939 110% => OK
Unique words: 240.0 215.323595506 111% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.524017467249 0.4932671777 106% => OK
syllable_count: 747.9 704.065955056 106% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 6.24550561798 80% => OK
Article: 9.0 4.99550561798 180% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 3.10617977528 129% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.38483146067 114% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 20.2370786517 89% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 23.0359550562 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 80.0383588593 60.3974514979 133% => OK
Chars per sentence: 133.666666667 118.986275619 112% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.4444444444 23.4991977007 108% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.44444444444 5.21951772744 162% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => 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 : 9.0 5.13820224719 175% => 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: 0.112956953269 0.243740707755 46% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0386548081468 0.0831039109588 47% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0349174304135 0.0758088955206 46% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0714256245723 0.150359130593 48% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0448550560696 0.0667264976115 67% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.0 14.1392134831 113% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 46.1 48.8420337079 94% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.0 12.1743820225 107% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.47 12.1639044944 111% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.36 8.38706741573 112% => OK
difficult_words: 130.0 100.480337079 129% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 20.0 11.8971910112 168% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.2143820225 107% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.7820224719 110% => 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.
Rates: 75.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.5 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.