Claim: Researchers should not limit their investigations to only those areas in which they expect to discover something that has an immediate, practical application. Reason: It is impossible to predict the outcome of a line of research with any certainty. reason
The writer claims that devoting more money for improving past knowledge and continue former scientists ways can limit the innovation and they should allocate more money for new discoveries. In addition, the writer reasons that they cannot easily predict the results of the research, therefore, it is better to investigate on new discoveries. In what follow I will first propound my answer to the claim then explain what I think of the reason on which the claim is based.
I cannot agree with the claim as it is because the author does not consider the economic disadvantages of this recommendation. As you know, for planning every research, the researchers have to provide some proposals that delineate their main propose of their research, materials and methods. Furthermore, they have to clearly estimate the budget they need to do this specific research. Therefore, if every scieitists want to do every research they want the funding and university budget spend widely in some research that might do not have significant findings or have impractical application. Hence, the university have to decide to devote the research budget fairly to the research that might have some breakthrough or new practical applications.
In addition, one of the important disadvantage of author recommendation is that the author overlooks the fact that the results of some discoveries and research might cause a negative consequences. For instance, when a famous scientist discover that they can use the Natron particles and atom features to produce nuclear power and use it as a inexpensive environmental energy, did not consider the negative and deleterious effects of this discovery on the dangerous bomb that could murdere thousands of people in the Japon. Hence, the results of every research have to predict and investigate because there are many innovation that could cause sever danger for human and environmental life.
As far as the reason concerned I cannot agree with the reason as it is because there is a problem. The writer represented that because anyone cannot predict the results of the research with certainty and they should not limit the scientists is the best way to improve the knowledge of scientists. But I think it is not the best way it can be only one way. As I mentioned above, it is crystal clear that the regulation and ruls have to limit the scientists because in some cases the research they aim to do have negative results and concequences on the human life. In addition, in other cases the research material and methods might need more money than the devoted budget of universities. Therefore, there are many ways that universities can provide the opportunities for scientists to improve their knowledge and make some discoveries but allowing them to do research without limitation cannot be the best way.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 6, column 184, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[2]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'consequence'?
Suggestion: consequence
...ies and research might cause a negative consequences. For instance, when a famous scientist ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 6, column 341, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'an' instead of 'a' if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g. 'an article', 'an hour'
Suggestion: an
... to produce nuclear power and use it as a inexpensive environmental energy, did n...
^
Line 6, column 611, Rule ID: MANY_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun innovation seems to be countable; consider using: 'many innovations'.
Suggestion: many innovations
...edict and investigate because there are many innovation that could cause sever danger for human...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 8, column 69, Rule ID: REASON_IS_BECAUSE[1]
Message: Probably an incorrect phrase. Use 'the reason 'is that''.
Suggestion: is that
...ed I cannot agree with the reason as it is because there is a problem. The writer represen...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, furthermore, hence, if, look, so, then, therefore, for instance, i think, in addition, you know, in some cases
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 19.5258426966 67% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 20.0 12.4196629213 161% => OK
Conjunction : 19.0 14.8657303371 128% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 11.3162921348 133% => OK
Pronoun: 43.0 33.0505617978 130% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 47.0 58.6224719101 80% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 12.9106741573 85% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2375.0 2235.4752809 106% => OK
No of words: 463.0 442.535393258 105% => OK
Chars per words: 5.12958963283 5.05705443957 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.63868890866 4.55969084622 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.89552368258 2.79657885939 104% => OK
Unique words: 192.0 215.323595506 89% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.414686825054 0.4932671777 84% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 750.6 704.065955056 107% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 6.24550561798 64% => OK
Article: 6.0 4.99550561798 120% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 3.10617977528 161% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.38483146067 114% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 20.2370786517 84% => 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: 27.0 23.0359550562 117% => OK
Sentence length SD: 59.8773255719 60.3974514979 99% => OK
Chars per sentence: 139.705882353 118.986275619 117% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.2352941176 23.4991977007 116% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.17647058824 5.21951772744 137% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 7.80617977528 51% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 10.2758426966 68% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 5.13820224719 156% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.83258426966 41% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.257177907157 0.243740707755 106% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0945239053828 0.0831039109588 114% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0451088512593 0.0758088955206 60% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.159559328064 0.150359130593 106% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0429261696165 0.0667264976115 64% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.4 14.1392134831 116% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 44.07 48.8420337079 90% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 12.1743820225 113% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.77 12.1639044944 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.35 8.38706741573 100% => OK
difficult_words: 99.0 100.480337079 99% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 11.8971910112 122% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.8 11.2143820225 114% => 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: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.