Some believe that scientists should concentrate on some parts of thier fields that are more beneficial for people, while others maintain that all the area of knowledge, useful for immidiate usage for people or not, are necessary to investigate. Though it seems both sides have their reasons for their claim, I strongly agree with the latter one that scientists should not be restricted in the area of knowledge that more likely to benefit individuals.
First of all, some field of knowledge are the base for others such as Mathematics, Physics and Chemistry. The scientists of these knowledge may could not present an innovation that immidiately can employ for people. But their finding is useful for other knowledge that serve more inventions to people such as engineering, medical and etc. Thus, restricting the scientist in some specific field may lead to decrease innovations in long term. For a specific example, the Mathematicians improve theorical methods of Machine learning while engineering use them for implementing in devices such as cell phones and autonomus vehicles.
Moreover, the capacity of research in different fields are becoming wider by increasing scientist everyday. So, if we limit them into specific area, in fact, we waste this capacity. Instead, they can work on some knowledge and broaden the horizon of knowledge in some area that maybe useful in the future. For example, some may think space craft investigation does not have nay promotion for individual people. However, the improvement in engine of spacecraft which invented decades ago, these days are implemented in our cars.
However, some claim that final goal of all knowledge is serving to people and all of the scientists should just focus on serving to people. They examplify some usage of knowledge that lead to killing people like atomic bomb or chemical gas attacks. Although there are some abuse of knowledge in the world, it is not correct to generalize to all of the knowledge that have not immidiate benefit for people. Thus, their reasons could not be cogent.
In conclusion, thought some people believe the scientists should be restricted to some parts of knowledge that have imediate benefit for people, I strongly reckon we should take them free to investigate in all of parts of knowledge. Because they may not have imediate advantage for us but could provide base knowledge for future benefits.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 124, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'this knowledge' or 'these knowledges'?
Suggestion: this knowledge; these knowledges
...hysics and Chemistry. The scientists of these knowledge may could not present an innovation tha...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 330, Rule ID: AND_ETC[1]
Message: Use simply 'etc.'.
Suggestion: etc.
... to people such as engineering, medical and etc. Thus, restricting the scientist in some...
^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 99, Rule ID: EVERYDAY_EVERY_DAY[3]
Message: 'Everyday' is an adjective. Did you mean 'every day'?
Suggestion: every day
... becoming wider by increasing scientist everyday. So, if we limit them into specific are...
^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 79, Rule ID: ALL_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'all the'.
Suggestion: all the
... all knowledge is serving to people and all of the scientists should just focus on serving...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 341, Rule ID: ALL_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'all the'.
Suggestion: all the
...rld, it is not correct to generalize to all of the knowledge that have not immidiate benef...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, if, may, moreover, so, thus, while, for example, in conclusion, in fact, such as, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 19.5258426966 61% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.4196629213 113% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 14.8657303371 61% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 11.3162921348 115% => OK
Pronoun: 34.0 33.0505617978 103% => OK
Preposition: 49.0 58.6224719101 84% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 12.9106741573 31% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2013.0 2235.4752809 90% => OK
No of words: 390.0 442.535393258 88% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.16153846154 5.05705443957 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.44391917772 4.55969084622 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.72934837238 2.79657885939 98% => OK
Unique words: 191.0 215.323595506 89% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.489743589744 0.4932671777 99% => OK
syllable_count: 636.3 704.065955056 90% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 6.24550561798 128% => OK
Article: 4.0 4.99550561798 80% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 3.10617977528 161% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.38483146067 46% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 20.2370786517 89% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 23.0359550562 91% => OK
Sentence length SD: 52.1669033245 60.3974514979 86% => OK
Chars per sentence: 111.833333333 118.986275619 94% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.6666666667 23.4991977007 92% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.38888888889 5.21951772744 122% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 7.80617977528 64% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 10.2758426966 78% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 5.13820224719 97% => 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: 0.127289960132 0.243740707755 52% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0481839126308 0.0831039109588 58% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0431451008625 0.0758088955206 57% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0862755374228 0.150359130593 57% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0396165560384 0.0667264976115 59% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.7 14.1392134831 97% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 48.8420337079 103% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.1743820225 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.65 12.1639044944 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.44 8.38706741573 101% => OK
difficult_words: 93.0 100.480337079 93% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 11.8971910112 118% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.2143820225 93% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.7820224719 119% => 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.