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 according to the reason in which denies the possibility of awareness of ultimate consequence of research; claims that the scholars should seek at various and broad fields without looking for the quick and functional outcomes. I fundamentally do not concur with this disposition. In what follows, I will list my potent arguments to cast doubt on the accuracy of this claim and its reason.
First of all, I prefer to clarify factors which leads to innovative exploration or invention. I believe that any innovative activity takes place for the sake of two factors of society’s demand or shortage and the scientists’ knowledge. At this paragraph, the society’ requirement will be discussed. Any vital requirement from the society is considered as the research topic for the scholars to figure out the effective and accountable response for that shortage. By the ignorance of this missing part, there should be an unmanageable and disastrous outcome. A lucid example which sheds a spotlight on my argument is the exploration of vaccine. If the exploration of the vaccine was overlooked in its exploration era, there would be thousands of mortalities. Consequently, there should be an immediate and urgent response to the demand of society to halt the misfortune outcomes.
Another crux factor which is mentioned in the previous paragraph is the knowledge of researcher on his or her research area. This knowledge and awareness give a deep insight through the topic which leads to the futurist expectation from the research. Thus, the explorer or inventor possesses the capability of guessing the ultimate consequence of his or her activity. This fact depicts how the supportive reason mentioned in the prompt is shaky. Furthermore, any scientific activity requires the supports in varied areas such as financial, information, or even the belief of its effectiveness. For attracting these rearing sources, there should be a proposal which explicitly explains the aim, material, method, process, and final desired outcome of the research. Therefore, for gaining the adherence the desired result should be identified before starting the activity.
However, there should be examples from the history which seems the inventor or explorer did an innovative task which did not the response to the emergency requirement of that era. Furthermore, the innovative tasks seem to do not possess both the abovementioned factors. For instance, the theory of heliocentric by the Nicolaus Copernicus during his period did not solve any problem; besides, as it was against the law and belief of on that period, it was ignored. Indeed, this ignorance happened for the sake of Copernicus profound and deep knowledge which did not fit with that period’s understanding. For the sake of this irregularity and his beyond ingenuity, that exploration seemed as the useless for that era. However, if the society has that background to accept the theory, it would be more beneficial for that period explorations.
To wrap it up, all the aforementioned arguments illustrate my stand toward the claim and its reason with which do not agree.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 126, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...and its reason with which do not agree.
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
besides, consequently, first, furthermore, however, if, look, so, therefore, thus, for instance, such as, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 19.5258426966 82% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.4196629213 81% => OK
Conjunction : 20.0 14.8657303371 135% => OK
Relative clauses : 20.0 11.3162921348 177% => OK
Pronoun: 40.0 33.0505617978 121% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 63.0 58.6224719101 107% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 12.9106741573 139% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2646.0 2235.4752809 118% => OK
No of words: 498.0 442.535393258 113% => OK
Chars per words: 5.31325301205 5.05705443957 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.72397222731 4.55969084622 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.09786712063 2.79657885939 111% => OK
Unique words: 241.0 215.323595506 112% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.483935742972 0.4932671777 98% => OK
syllable_count: 827.1 704.065955056 117% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 6.24550561798 160% => OK
Article: 6.0 4.99550561798 120% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 3.10617977528 97% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.77640449438 113% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.38483146067 91% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 25.0 20.2370786517 124% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 23.0359550562 82% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 40.8253646646 60.3974514979 68% => OK
Chars per sentence: 105.84 118.986275619 89% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.92 23.4991977007 85% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.72 5.21951772744 90% => 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 : 8.0 5.13820224719 156% => 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: 0.175164217624 0.243740707755 72% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0508874269713 0.0831039109588 61% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.046158339244 0.0758088955206 61% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.112237837445 0.150359130593 75% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0450979831176 0.0667264976115 68% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.5 14.1392134831 95% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 43.73 48.8420337079 90% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.1743820225 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.52 12.1639044944 111% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.21 8.38706741573 110% => OK
difficult_words: 146.0 100.480337079 145% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 11.8971910112 101% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.2143820225 86% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.7820224719 119% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.