In the argument, the author raises two counter viewpoints to the study of science with one proposing that science has helped us answer questions and the other contending that science has actually raised more questions than it has answered. The two views seem to run parallel to each other with their inherent beliefs being so vagrant as to have little scope of intersection, however it is this converge that I wish to support and would be using examples from various fields of science to bolster my argument.
As human beings become older, their questions about various aspects of their life are not quenched but merely altered or evolved. Questions such as “if the earth is round why does water not fall off?” that perplex a kid are no longer pondered upon by adults as their understanding of the theory of gravitation provides a lucid explanation for this conundrum. However as the person becomes older, more existential questions enamor him and his cognitive functions become engaged in answering those. The same is true for science as well. Today we are more conversant about matter and its workings in governing how the world functions, than our ancestors and from an absolute dependence on nature we can today predict earthquakes to ensure that minimum damage to human life and property is suffered.
However despite the advances in science and voyages to outer space, scientists are still in a quandary over the elements of the universe and over 96% of these components comprising of dark matter and dark energy are unbeknownst to us. The implications of this could change everything we know of thus far, from our perspective of physics to the study of astronomy and the perpetual deliberations on Armageddon that besot us.
Science has also opened up several possibilities which have more direct bearing on humans than the question of when the world would end. Progress in the field of investigative sciences have impelled us closer to meting out a somewhat ‘divine’ form of justice with the guilty now having higher likelihood of getting persecuted and an innocent higher acclivity of getting absolved. The case against Bruce Ivins, the accused in the anthrax letter attacks highlights the power of science to acquit even a deceased person wrongly implicated. On the other hand debate surrounding the acquittal of Amanda Knox have raised questions regarding the excessive reliance on science, the workings of the human mind involved in such heinous crimes and the psychology of the jury who has been accused of being dispensed towards the accused because of her looks.
As famously said, “change is the only constant”. The world is constantly evolving and our changing interactions with this dynamic world create more flux. Theories which were earlier believed to be true, have been disproved now and more complex questions have taken their stead. In psychology, for instance, it was believed that our behavior was exclusively determined by our experiences and memories and this theory was accepted until very recently. For someone wanting to control the behavior of his or her child this presented a controlled scientific experiment. But the knowledge of genetics and the interplay of genes in determining aspects of personality have added a new dimension to this equation making it less controlled.
These dualities can be witnessed in every aspect of science and the questions about every aspect of our life abound perhaps because we are more enlightened today. As the world evolves the questions and answers to those questions also need to undergo transformation, the quest for perfect enlightenment is akin to the quest for the holy grail, it is something we aspire for but in reality it could just be a myth.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 370, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: However,
...a lucid explanation for this conundrum. However as the person becomes older, more exist...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: However,
...human life and property is suffered. However despite the advances in science and voy...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 171, Rule ID: COMPRISING_OF[1]
Message: Did you mean 'comprising' or 'consisting of'?
Suggestion: comprising; consisting of
...iverse and over 96% of these components comprising of dark matter and dark energy are unbekno...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 473, Rule ID: HE_VERB_AGR[1]
Message: The pronoun 'someone' must be used with a third-person verb: 'wants'.
Suggestion: wants
...cepted until very recently. For someone wanting to control the behavior of his or her c...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, however, if, look, regarding, so, still, thus, well, as to, for instance, such as, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 26.0 19.5258426966 133% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 12.4196629213 56% => OK
Conjunction : 24.0 14.8657303371 161% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 11.3162921348 97% => OK
Pronoun: 52.0 33.0505617978 157% => OK
Preposition: 89.0 58.6224719101 152% => OK
Nominalization: 23.0 12.9106741573 178% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3155.0 2235.4752809 141% => OK
No of words: 614.0 442.535393258 139% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.13843648208 5.05705443957 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.977853291 4.55969084622 109% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.82385109453 2.79657885939 101% => OK
Unique words: 327.0 215.323595506 152% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.532573289902 0.4932671777 108% => OK
syllable_count: 986.4 704.065955056 140% => 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
Interrogative: 0.0 0.740449438202 0% => OK
Article: 9.0 4.99550561798 180% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 3.10617977528 161% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.38483146067 91% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 20.2370786517 104% => OK
Sentence length: 29.0 23.0359550562 126% => OK
Sentence length SD: 71.2056839944 60.3974514979 118% => OK
Chars per sentence: 150.238095238 118.986275619 126% => OK
Words per sentence: 29.2380952381 23.4991977007 124% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.7619047619 5.21951772744 110% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 4.97078651685 121% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 7.80617977528 51% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 10.2758426966 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 5.13820224719 97% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.83258426966 124% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.200344491704 0.243740707755 82% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0567991953755 0.0831039109588 68% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0469696005318 0.0758088955206 62% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.100410613551 0.150359130593 67% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0283299631301 0.0667264976115 42% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.4 14.1392134831 123% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 42.04 48.8420337079 86% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.6 12.1743820225 120% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.12 12.1639044944 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.73 8.38706741573 116% => OK
difficult_words: 181.0 100.480337079 180% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 17.0 11.8971910112 143% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.6 11.2143820225 121% => OK
text_standard: 17.0 11.7820224719 144% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.