Government funding for pure science endeavors, such as space exploration, should be reduced in order to direct more funding towards humanitarian science projects.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and supporting your position, be sure to consider specific instances for which this statement may or may not be true
The stage at which the mankind is right now is all due to the rapid developments in science. For centuries, scientists and researchers have dedicated their life entirely to science and the inventions naturally following the researches. In previous years where the human being lived very archaic life it was necessary to look up to science for alleviating the sufferings faced by the global population all over the world. But as of today with so much progress in each and every field it may seem logical to reduce the funding for pure science endeavours, and to redirect it for the humanitarian science projects.
First of all, is the living of the citizens at a certain standard that major funding should be given to pure science projects? Depending on the current standards and situation at which the denizen of the country are living in, it will be possible to take a strong stand for or against the claim. For instance, if the majority of the populace of the country is living below the below poverty line, it would seem more viable for the government to look into the humanitarian projects rather than expanding the research for pure science. Providing better amenities takes precedence over pure science. Researches in science are done to improve the living conditions. But what is the use if the developments made until now are not used to the fullest. It would not be in the goodwill of the citizens of funds are diverted to pure science. The government will have to reduce the funding in order to maintain a healthy life for its citizens and full of comfort for the basic needs.
Many countries in the world are ravaged with diseases and all sorts of other medical ailments. It is the duty of the government to look after its people so that they can be cured and healed very rapidly. In such a situation if the government is not able to get funds from anywhere else, it would be a good choice to reduce the funds for pure science programs and redistribute it for researches trying to find cures and medicines for the widespread epidemics and other diseases. Pure science projects in today’s world have a secondary position. What will be the use of new scienctific discoveries if there is no population in future to celebrate it.
As always, as compelling it would seem to reduce the funds for pure science projects, it might not be the case always. Government in countries which have the highest standard of living, a good happiness index and little to no difficulties for the citizens may take a decision in support with the claim. Maintaining a healthy is living is important, but it is also very crucial to keep moving forward in the various scientific fields. A full stop to the new discoveries may very well have adverse effects in the coming future. But this would hold merit only if the citizens are happy and are provided with the best available technologies and services.
The conclusion is a very broad and indeed a complex one to take a side for. As such there are no easy answers for it. After all, it depends on the government’s ability to maintain the balance between both. So comprehensive understanding and knowledge about what is best for the country currently, the government may or may not reduce the funding for pure science projects and provide it for more and better humanitarian projects.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...for the humanitarian science projects. First of all, is the living of the citiz...
^^^^
Line 4, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...d full of comfort for the basic needs. Many countries in the world are ravaged ...
^^^^
Line 7, column 113, Rule ID: ADVERB_WORD_ORDER[3]
Message: The adverb 'always' is usually not used at the end of a sentence.
...ence projects, it might not be the case always. Government in countries which have the...
^^^^^^
Line 7, column 317, Rule ID: DT_JJ_NO_NOUN[2]
Message: Probably a noun is missing in this part of the sentence.
... in support with the claim. Maintaining a healthy is living is important, but it is also ...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, if, look, may, second, so, well, after all, for instance, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 30.0 19.5258426966 154% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 12.4196629213 129% => OK
Conjunction : 24.0 14.8657303371 161% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 11.3162921348 53% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 23.0 33.0505617978 70% => OK
Preposition: 76.0 58.6224719101 130% => OK
Nominalization: 29.0 12.9106741573 225% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2773.0 2235.4752809 124% => OK
No of words: 577.0 442.535393258 130% => OK
Chars per words: 4.80589254766 5.05705443957 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.90110439584 4.55969084622 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.74128350459 2.79657885939 98% => OK
Unique words: 252.0 215.323595506 117% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.436741767764 0.4932671777 89% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 871.2 704.065955056 124% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59117977528 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 6.24550561798 112% => OK
Article: 6.0 4.99550561798 120% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 3.10617977528 161% => OK
Conjunction: 5.0 1.77640449438 281% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 4.38483146067 68% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 26.0 20.2370786517 128% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 23.0359550562 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 57.5278682145 60.3974514979 95% => OK
Chars per sentence: 106.653846154 118.986275619 90% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.1923076923 23.4991977007 94% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.38461538462 5.21951772744 65% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 7.80617977528 51% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 16.0 10.2758426966 156% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 5.13820224719 39% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.312228130895 0.243740707755 128% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0884454050255 0.0831039109588 106% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0765524707891 0.0758088955206 101% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.201880321186 0.150359130593 134% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.028202848344 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: 12.3 14.1392134831 87% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 57.61 48.8420337079 118% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.1743820225 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.62 12.1639044944 87% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.93 8.38706741573 95% => OK
difficult_words: 117.0 100.480337079 116% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 11.8971910112 122% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.2143820225 96% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.7820224719 93% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 62.5 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.75 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.