Do you agree with the following statement? The government should support scientific research even if there’s no practical use.
Since the dawn of civilization, people faced different kinds of impediments in their lives. Therefore, they always were exploring for finding the solution of these difficulties. The ever-increasing prominence of scientific researches has aroused this longstanding controversy as to whether the government should allocate money to scientific studies even if there is no practical use or not. Some people believe that government should support these researches anyway, while others may hold the opposite viewpoint and argue that it is not rational to spent lots of money on non-practical investigations. From my own perspective, the second idea is correct. There are numerous grounds, two of which I will elaborate in what follows.
The first reason coming to mind to substantiate my standpoint is that due to lack of enough money, it is more logical the government only supports practical researches. Researchers, in many cases, have lots of unrealistic ideas which want to examine without comprehensive knowledge. Many of these ideas are far-fetched and implausible to have any useful result. Thus, governments should not invest any money on these superficial ideas, which are a waste of money and time. Take my country as an example of this. In my country, there is no supervision on scientific researches as to whether are practical or not. Besides, all of these projects receive approximately similar amount of fund. As a consequence, there are lots of non-practical projects which do not have any constructive effect on improving the quality of individuals' lives and are just a waste of money. No one can deny the fact that the more governments invest money on unnecessary research projects, the less money remains for indisputable scientific researches. If government only allocates money to invaluable experimental projects, researchers do more endeavor to find rational subjects, because they know that this is the only way that they can have the support of the government.
The second noteworthy reason which deserves some words here is that there are lots of urgent problems which require significant attention and money to be solved. As a consequence, it is more necessary for the government to spend its money on solving these problems. For instance, cancer is an incurable disease which leads to death of hundreds of people every year. It is no secret that finding treatment of this fatal disease demands a large amount of money. Nowadays, despite the development of technology, the mortality of this disease remained high, because governments do not allot adequate budget for scientific investigations for treatment of cancer. I personally contend that the problem of lacking budget for such important researches which are the matter of life and death should be solved by reducing the donating money to the non-practical researches. This way, government could spend enough amounts of money on treatment of such serious diseases.
On the whole, based on the points mentioned above, I refuse this idea that governments should support scientific researches even if they are not practical. First, in this way, there is more chance that researchers come up with practical research subjects to have the support of the government. Secondly, there are more imperative predicaments which should be solved as soon as possible.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-07-21 | erfan_shak | 76 | view |
| 2019-09-20 | ememari | 66 | view |
- Do you agree with the following statement? The government should support scientific research even if there’s no practical use. 73
- TPO28 75
- Do you agree with the following statement The government should support scientific research even if there s no practical use 66
- TPO48 78
- TPO22-Integrated writing 66
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 109, Rule ID: ADVERB_WORD_ORDER[4]
Message: The adverb 'always' is usually put after the verb 'were'.
Suggestion: were always
...diments in their lives. Therefore, they always were exploring for finding the solution of t...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 277, Rule ID: WHETHER[6]
Message: Can you shorten this phrase to just 'whether', or rephrase the sentence to avoid "as to"?
Suggestion: whether
...s aroused this longstanding controversy as to whether the government should allocate money to...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 28, Rule ID: ADMIT_ENJOY_VB[1]
Message: This verb is used with the gerund form: 'mind substantiating'.
Suggestion: mind substantiating
...t follows. The first reason coming to mind to substantiate my standpoint is that due to lack of en...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 577, Rule ID: WHETHER[6]
Message: Can you shorten this phrase to just 'whether', or rephrase the sentence to avoid "as to"?
Suggestion: whether
...no supervision on scientific researches as to whether are practical or not. Besides, all of t...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
anyway, besides, first, if, may, second, secondly, so, therefore, thus, while, as to, for instance, in many cases, on the whole
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 26.0 15.1003584229 172% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 9.8082437276 112% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 13.8261648746 58% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 20.0 11.0286738351 181% => OK
Pronoun: 42.0 43.0788530466 97% => OK
Preposition: 69.0 52.1666666667 132% => OK
Nominalization: 19.0 8.0752688172 235% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2812.0 1977.66487455 142% => OK
No of words: 527.0 407.700716846 129% => OK
Chars per words: 5.33586337761 4.8611393121 110% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.79129216042 4.48103885553 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.06518048738 2.67179642975 115% => OK
Unique words: 249.0 212.727598566 117% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.472485768501 0.524837075471 90% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 882.9 618.680645161 143% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.51630824373 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 9.59856630824 73% => OK
Article: 6.0 3.08781362007 194% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 3.51792114695 199% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.86738351254 0% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.94265232975 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 26.0 20.6003584229 126% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 20.1344086022 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 52.5118893272 48.9658058833 107% => OK
Chars per sentence: 108.153846154 100.406767564 108% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.2692307692 20.6045352989 98% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.88461538462 5.45110844103 90% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.5376344086 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 11.8709677419 76% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 3.85842293907 285% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.88709677419 123% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.257795862898 0.236089414692 109% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0738228717956 0.076458572812 97% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.082492352661 0.0737576698707 112% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.192396700597 0.150856017488 128% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0641152860749 0.0645574589148 99% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.9 11.7677419355 118% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 42.72 58.1214874552 74% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.10430107527 144% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 10.1575268817 121% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.69 10.9000537634 126% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.52 8.01818996416 106% => OK
difficult_words: 130.0 86.8835125448 150% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 10.002688172 115% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.0537634409 99% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 10.247311828 137% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Better to have 5 paragraphs with 3 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: conclusion.
So how to find out those reasons. There is a formula:
reasons == advantages or
reasons == disadvantages
for example, we can always apply 'save time', 'save/make money', 'find a job', 'make friends', 'get more information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.
or we can apply 'waste time', 'waste money', 'no job', 'make bad friends', 'get bad information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.
Rates: 73.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.0 Out of 30
---------------------
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.