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.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim and the reason on which that claim is based.
The author claims that the scholars should go beyond the boundaries which they expect to achieve a quick and functional application. The writer further supports his claim with the reason that the prediction of the research result is impossible. I fundamentally do not concur with this disposition.
First of all, I prefer to clarify the goal of any exploration and invention. From my perspective, all these innovative activities are for the sake of scientists’ knowledge and intelligence and the shortage or the demand of society. Consequently, two factors have a role in the appearance of any innovative outcome. At this paragraph, the demand of society is considered for the discussion. All research proposals are shaped according to the necessity of something which is missing in the community. Therefore, this insufficiency urges the immediate response by which ignorance, the disastrous outcomes such as the fatality of population could occur. A lucid example which shed light over my argument is the exploration of vaccine by Edward Jenner. This innovative exploration was happened according to the emergency requirement of society in that era; otherwise, there would be thousands of mortalities.
As mentioned, another parameter of the innovative activities is the knowledge of scientist. This information gives a profound insight toward the issue which could also give futuristic outlook over the topic. This outlook helps the scholar to have some expectation and awareness of his or her scientific activities’ ultimate result. Therefore, the reason for a prompt which denies the possibility of expected outcome from the exploration or invention is a shaky reason. Furthermore, the scientific research needs the adherences during its process, this support could be in fields such as the financial, informative, or even the belief of its effectiveness. For attracting these adherences there is a demand for a proposal which explains the aim, method, materials, and expected outcomes. By this proposal, the researcher finds the proper rearing sources for his or her activities.
Finally, it is possible to consider some innovative investigations which do not possesses both the above-mentioned benchmark at the same time. For instance, the heliocentric hypothesis is presented by the Nicolaus Copernicus which was beyond his era knowledge and understanding; thus, it was overlooked and underestimated on that period. Actually, this exploration happened for the sake of the Copernicus ingenuity which does not match with that era’s belief and understanding. In this scenario, is it logical to correlate this innovative exploration to the Copernicus’ broad research area or his deep and abysmal knowledge?! Of course, his knowledge ends to this consequence.
To wrap it up, all the aforementioned arguments illustrates my stand toward the claim and its reason and why I do not agree with them.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 81, Rule ID: DONT_NEEDS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'possess'?
Suggestion: possess
... innovative investigations which do not possesses both the above-mentioned benchmark at t...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, consequently, finally, first, furthermore, if, look, so, therefore, thus, for instance, of course, such as, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 19.5258426966 87% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 12.4196629213 40% => OK
Conjunction : 18.0 14.8657303371 121% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 11.3162921348 133% => OK
Pronoun: 42.0 33.0505617978 127% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 56.0 58.6224719101 96% => OK
Nominalization: 21.0 12.9106741573 163% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2474.0 2235.4752809 111% => OK
No of words: 448.0 442.535393258 101% => OK
Chars per words: 5.52232142857 5.05705443957 109% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.60065326758 4.55969084622 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.34076254108 2.79657885939 119% => OK
Unique words: 230.0 215.323595506 107% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.513392857143 0.4932671777 104% => OK
syllable_count: 783.0 704.065955056 111% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 11.0 6.24550561798 176% => OK
Article: 9.0 4.99550561798 180% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 3.10617977528 32% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.77640449438 113% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.38483146067 137% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 20.2370786517 114% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 23.0359550562 82% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 38.4282898313 60.3974514979 64% => OK
Chars per sentence: 107.565217391 118.986275619 90% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.4782608696 23.4991977007 83% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.91304347826 5.21951772744 113% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 10.2758426966 117% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 5.13820224719 136% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.83258426966 83% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.183046203424 0.243740707755 75% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0562084828541 0.0831039109588 68% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0550777976135 0.0758088955206 73% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.12121763512 0.150359130593 81% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0736715216322 0.0667264976115 110% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.3 14.1392134831 101% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 43.73 48.8420337079 90% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.1743820225 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.74 12.1639044944 121% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.55 8.38706741573 114% => OK
difficult_words: 141.0 100.480337079 140% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 11.8971910112 76% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.2143820225 86% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.7820224719 85% => 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.