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 Writ

Essay topics:

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.

People conduct research to make significant discoveries to benefit our society. The author states that research should not be bound to a particular limitation because it is impossible to anticipate research results with any certitude. I agree with the author’s claim and reasons, so I will argue why the author’s argument holds true in the following essay.

Admittedly, in some cases, researchers should limit their study to specific areas to make an immediate and feasible application. This is because restricting the research range would be effective in realizing particular goals. Take Henry Ford, for example. Even though he was not the pioneer of inventing automobiles, he contributed to commercializing automobiles on a large scale to the general public. Before the advent of his technology, only affluent people could afford cars. Thus, with his goal of the mass production of automobiles, Ford limited the range of research areas to develop economic modes of transportation. He finally designed the assembly line, in which thousands of cars were built by people specializing in a specific part of the car. Since Ford limited his investigation to create immediate advancement, he could make automobiles readily available to everyone. In light of the above case, limiting research topics is essential because practical applications reap benefits for society.

However, in most cases, researchers should not conduct research on a limited area to achieve rapid development. Such limitations would only hamper the long-term studies and potential success. To illustrate, Samuel Huntington conducted a study in an area that would not yield pragmatic outcomes readily accessible. Nevertheless, through his continuous research, he could come up with the concept of the “Clash of Civilization,” stating that future wars after the Cold War would be fought not between countries but between cultures and religions and that Islamic extremism would be the biggest threat to the Western domination of the world. After the 9/11 terrorist proved his hypothesis, he motivated many political scientists and scholars to analyze the long-run investigation of his theory. Hence, immediate and practical applications should not be primarily sought when conducting studies.

Furthermore, the reason that predicting the outcome of a line of research with confidence is impossible is credible. Throughout the history of scientific research, many innovative discoveries were unpredictable and fortuitous. Stem cell research can be a compelling example. Because of the ethical implications of the study, many people castigated scientists leading the stem cell study. Still, the study is highly possible to bring unprecedented improvement in the field of medical science, as stem cells could be used to treat incurable and terminal diseases. Although there is uncertainty regarding the consequences of the study due to the various factors affecting the process of the experiment, the unpredictable results may be epochal in the area of health care. Accordingly, given that the property of research’s uncertainty could lead to revolutionary scientific findings, scientists and researchers should not narrow their research areas to the practical world.

In conclusion, even though setting specific research fields help generate practical applications to some degree, research should not be limited in scope. In addition, people should broaden their horizons to think beyond just the immediate world.

Votes
Average: 7.9 (1 vote)
Essay Categories

Comments

Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 388, Rule ID: GENERAL_XX[1]
Message: Use simply 'public'.
Suggestion: public
...ing automobiles on a large scale to the general public. Before the advent of his technology, o...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Transition Words or Phrases used:
accordingly, but, finally, furthermore, hence, however, if, may, nevertheless, regarding, so, still, thus, as to, for example, in addition, in conclusion, in most cases, in some cases

Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.5258426966 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 20.0 12.4196629213 161% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 14.8657303371 74% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 11.3162921348 71% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 26.0 33.0505617978 79% => OK
Preposition: 78.0 58.6224719101 133% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 12.9106741573 124% => OK

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2975.0 2235.4752809 133% => OK
No of words: 524.0 442.535393258 118% => OK
Chars per words: 5.67748091603 5.05705443957 112% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.7844588288 4.55969084622 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.13186196676 2.79657885939 112% => OK
Unique words: 278.0 215.323595506 129% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.530534351145 0.4932671777 108% => OK
syllable_count: 908.1 704.065955056 129% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK

A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 6.24550561798 112% => OK
Article: 4.0 4.99550561798 80% => OK
Subordination: 8.0 3.10617977528 258% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 14.0 4.38483146067 319% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.

Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 27.0 20.2370786517 133% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 23.0359550562 82% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 55.9212409124 60.3974514979 93% => OK
Chars per sentence: 110.185185185 118.986275619 93% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.4074074074 23.4991977007 83% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.77777777778 5.21951772744 130% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 10.2758426966 127% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 5.13820224719 117% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.83258426966 166% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?

Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.354869076044 0.243740707755 146% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0973308404242 0.0831039109588 117% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0865496305469 0.0758088955206 114% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.203646580774 0.150359130593 135% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0147037476944 0.0667264976115 22% => 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: 15.0 14.1392134831 106% => 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: 15.66 12.1639044944 129% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.34 8.38706741573 111% => OK
difficult_words: 158.0 100.480337079 157% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 11.8971910112 63% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.2143820225 86% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.7820224719 85% => OK
What are above readability scores?

---------------------

Rates: 79.17 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.75 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.