Government funding for purely scientific endeavors should be reduced in order to direct more function towards humanitarian science project.
The prompt propounds that more government funding should be directed towards humanitarian science research project while reducing the funding to purely scientific projects. This claim is too broad, and I claim that the decision of which research projects should receive more funding cannot be determined by just the kind of science involved in the project. Rather, purely scientific research can have long term benefit not obvious. And comparisons have to made in a case by case basis to decide funding allocation.
Purely science research can help facilitate the development of other humanitarian research. Specifically, some purely scientific research is the foundation of other humanitarian research. For example, Mendel’s result from the research on the law of genetics opened the gateway to many humanitarian research that helped millions of people. Genetically modified or enhanced food crops enables farmers to work less but still receive a reliable bountiful harvest each year. But when Mendel was conducting his experiment, it was purely scientific, and it is not clear whether his research will benefit human at large or not. And this is the nature of science. Similarly, right now we cannot claim with certitude that humanitarian research will benefit the society more and purely scientific ones will less. We should not reduce funding to project just because it is purely scientific.
Many purely scientific research projects might not benefit human society right away, their results are so impressive that they inspire the young generation to participate in science. I was and still am a big fan of space exploration. I was a child when China sent her first human to space. Sitting at the TV watching the footage of the astronaut floating in space, I was driven to become a scientist and participate in such a project myself. Now I am graduating college with a major in mathematics, I am sure that the footage of a man in space was one of reason I chose my study. It should not be a surprise that many more young minds were attracted to science by news of space exploration or wonder of number theory. These research projects might be purely scientific and their benefit to human being might be obscure. They increased the amount of people interested in science and one of them might be the one who make a breakthrough in some important humanitarian research topic.
However, when there is a humanitarian research project that would immediately save society of a catastrophe, more funding should be funneled to those projects at the expense of the purely scientific ones. Imagine a scenario where there is an epidemic outbreak that in endangering large pocket of population, then large sum of funding should be devoted to the research of disease prevention rather to projects like space exploration. This is clear if we consider the consequence of the lack of funding would do for these two project. Large amount of people might perish if humans cannot find a cure at enough. But lack of money would only delay our progress in colonizing Mars for a few years. We should devote funding to the humanitarian project. However, these extreme cases occurs rarely.
In summation, government should not reduce funding to purely scientific research just because they are purely scientific. Rather, a comparison of cost and benefit of the projects at hand should be conducted in order to decide on a case by case basis.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 408, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Possible agreement error -- use past participle here: 'termed'.
Suggestion: termed
...ely scienctific reasearch can have long term benefit not obvious. And comparisons ha...
^^^^
Line 3, column 281, Rule ID: MANY_NN_U[3]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun research seems to be uncountable; consider using: 'much humanitarian research', 'a good deal of humanitarian research'.
Suggestion: much humanitarian research; a good deal of humanitarian research
...e law of genetics opened the gateway to many humanitarian research that helped millions of people. Genetic...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, if, so, still, then, while, for example, kind of
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 27.0 19.5258426966 138% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 25.0 12.4196629213 201% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 16.0 14.8657303371 108% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 11.3162921348 133% => OK
Pronoun: 43.0 33.0505617978 130% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 72.0 58.6224719101 123% => OK
Nominalization: 20.0 12.9106741573 155% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2880.0 2235.4752809 129% => OK
No of words: 567.0 442.535393258 128% => OK
Chars per words: 5.07936507937 5.05705443957 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.87972968509 4.55969084622 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.80196352004 2.79657885939 100% => OK
Unique words: 259.0 215.323595506 120% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.456790123457 0.4932671777 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 902.7 704.065955056 128% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 14.0 6.24550561798 224% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 2.0 4.99550561798 40% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 3.10617977528 32% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.77640449438 225% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 1.0 4.38483146067 23% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 29.0 20.2370786517 143% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 23.0359550562 82% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 49.9130992746 60.3974514979 83% => OK
Chars per sentence: 99.3103448276 118.986275619 83% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.5517241379 23.4991977007 83% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.37931034483 5.21951772744 46% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 15.0 10.2758426966 146% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 5.13820224719 39% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 12.0 4.83258426966 248% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.407748585338 0.243740707755 167% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.110028172244 0.0831039109588 132% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.11839132351 0.0758088955206 156% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.261338531179 0.150359130593 174% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0780788817566 0.0667264976115 117% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.3 14.1392134831 87% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 48.8420337079 107% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.1743820225 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.18 12.1639044944 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.06 8.38706741573 96% => OK
difficult_words: 125.0 100.480337079 124% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 11.8971910112 71% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.2143820225 86% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.