Government funding for purely scientific endeavors, such as space exploration, should be reduced in order to direct more funding toward 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.
Science is an expansive field which is still in a very inchoate state. People are continuously striving to decipher new problems in science. According to the author's statement, governments should cut off fundings from projects that do not directly benefit humans. I agree with this statement as governments have limited fundings, and therefore it makes sense for them to invest more on projects that make the world a better place to live and should only fund other projects if they have surplus funds.
Admittedly, purely scientific endeavors are important for the growth of science and to improve the understanding of the current scientific topics. For instance, the Light Hadron Collider(LHC) is a particle accelerator that was created in CERN, Switzerland, is a purely scientific endeavor which does not affect the lives of humans in any possible way, but was a huge step in the study of physics and understanding the origin of our planet. Similarly, space exploration missions to Moon helped scientists and astronomers to deepen their knowledge about space. These tasks should not be given priority, but shouldn't be neglected either. If the government has extra funds, it is their duty to invest them in projects like these to help in advancing science.
However, the priority of governments should always be the people of their country. Without sentient beings, what world do with all the scientific knowledge? For instance, is it more important for nations to invest on finding the cure for the new Corona Virus, which is spreading like wild fire all across the world or use all the funding to launch a satellite in space? Without a doubt, it is quintessential for a government to prioritize humanitarian science projects that can improve the living conditions of the people.
Another example can be the deteriorating conditions of the environment. The government should work on projects that help in ameliorating the current water crisis in the world. Global warming is another worrying issue that needs to be addressed. It is issues like these that the government should focus their funds on, rather than working on purely scientific endeavors.
In conclusion, it is very important for the government to invest in the study of new scientific advancements, but they should not prioritize it. Humanitarian science projects should always hold an upper hand as without humans there would be no use of all the acquired science knowledge. Therefore, governments should be prudent and be concerned with the well being of their people.
- Government funding for purely scientific endeavors, such as space exploration, should be reduced in order to direct more funding toward humanitarian science projects.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the 75
- In order to help small businesses thrive, government should play a minimal role in private business matters. 66
- Scandals are useful because they focus our attention on problems in ways that no speaker or reformer ever could.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 50
- If two applicants for a job are otherwise equally qualified, the job should go to the applicant with more experience.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the posi 50
- The following appeared in a memo from the owner of a chain of cheese stores located throughout the United States."For many years all the stores in our chain have stocked a wide variety of both domestic and imported cheeses. Last year, however, all of 69
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 159, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...w problems in science. According to the authors statement, governments should cut off f...
Line 3, column 604, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
...tasks should not be given priority, but shouldnt be neglected either. If the government ...
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, however, if, similarly, still, therefore, well, for instance, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 24.0 19.5258426966 123% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.4196629213 97% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 14.8657303371 67% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 11.3162921348 88% => OK
Pronoun: 29.0 33.0505617978 88% => OK
Preposition: 56.0 58.6224719101 96% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 12.9106741573 139% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2134.0 2235.4752809 95% => OK
No of words: 411.0 442.535393258 93% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.19221411192 5.05705443957 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.50256981431 4.55969084622 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.88887203982 2.79657885939 103% => OK
Unique words: 207.0 215.323595506 96% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.503649635036 0.4932671777 102% => OK
syllable_count: 637.2 704.065955056 91% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 6.24550561798 96% => OK
Article: 3.0 4.99550561798 60% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 3.10617977528 32% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.77640449438 225% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 4.38483146067 91% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 20.2370786517 99% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 23.0359550562 87% => OK
Sentence length SD: 59.1772760441 60.3974514979 98% => OK
Chars per sentence: 106.7 118.986275619 90% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.55 23.4991977007 87% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.0 5.21951772744 77% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 10.2758426966 117% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 5.13820224719 78% => 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: 0.299308002428 0.243740707755 123% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0872885764211 0.0831039109588 105% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0462213508589 0.0758088955206 61% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.175389459488 0.150359130593 117% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0223822950344 0.0667264976115 34% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
automated_readability_index: 13.3 14.1392134831 94% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 48.8420337079 105% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.92365168539 39% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.1743820225 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.82 12.1639044944 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.28 8.38706741573 99% => OK
difficult_words: 95.0 100.480337079 95% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 11.8971910112 88% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.2143820225 89% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.7820224719 110% => OK
What are above readability scores?
Rates: 75.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.5 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.