"Government should place few, if any, restrictions on scientific research and development."
Whether government should place restrictions on scientific research has been controversial issues. Indisputably, radical science developments often bring disasters to people like the atomic bomb and side effects of drugs. Nevertheless, many regulations on research and development often hamper their growth. Thus, I generally disagree with the placing restriction, and would argue that government only need the least amount of restriction to prevent an accidents.
First of all, placing any restrictions would weaken the nation's technological competitiveness. I would like to point out that the today's technology is winner takes all bases. To illustrate, let us look at the example of big data. In early 20th century, Facebook became dominant in social network business. Even many company like Twitter, Instagram, and Snap-chat followed its lead, but they couldn't success as much as Facebook. Moreover, after Google became popular, many other search engine were diminished. They became popular because the US government continually supported them by providing internet security and financial support not putting restriction on their business. In this winner get all world, Government should support newly promising technology like 3D printer, Artificial Intelligence, and drone to become dominant in that field. Consequently, it is pretty obvious that putting restriction will weaken one's competitiveness.
Furthermore, it is hard for government to regulate those scientific research. Specifically, South Korean government imposed many laws on unmanned flying object called drone. However, only a few people are getting caught for their illegal use of drone, and many people secretly breaching the law. More restriction means more people and money, but the government only has limited workers. This common sense has told us that more restriction would be another cumbersome for a government which demonstrates that restriction is unnecessary.
Admittedly, radical science development often cause accidents. This is true especially when it comes to the World War II when countries used nuclear weapon. In addition, some unprepared medicines or surgery brought unexpected side effects. However, the above argument does not join a enough support to claim that government should place restriction. Instead, they should only penalize few people who maliciously take advantage on other people, and put only minimum restriction to protect their people.
In conclusion, although some science development brought danger in history, our technological development became possible with the government aid. As long as government take some preventive measure, government should not place restriction on scientific research fact, they have to look for what promising field and give full support.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 1, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “Whether” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
Whether government should place restrictions on...
^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 451, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[1]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'an accident' or simply 'accidents'?
Suggestion: an accident; accidents
... least amount of restriction to prevent an accidents. First of all, placing any restricti...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 131, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'todays'' or 'today's'?
Suggestion: todays'; today's
...ess. I would like to point out that the todays technology is winner takes all bases. T...
^^^^^^
Line 3, column 392, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: couldn't
...d Snap-chat followed its lead, but they couldnt success as much as Facebook. Moreover, ...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 920, Rule ID: ONES[1]
Message: Did you mean 'one's'?
Suggestion: one's
...us that putting restriction will weaken ones competitiveness. Furthermore, it is ...
^^^^
Line 7, column 283, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'an' instead of 'a' if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g. 'an article', 'an hour'
Suggestion: an
...wever, the above argument does not join a enough support to claim that government...
^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, consequently, first, furthermore, however, if, look, moreover, nevertheless, so, thus, as to, in addition, in conclusion, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 19.5258426966 46% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.4196629213 89% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 14.8657303371 87% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 11.3162921348 97% => OK
Pronoun: 30.0 33.0505617978 91% => OK
Preposition: 39.0 58.6224719101 67% => OK
Nominalization: 32.0 12.9106741573 248% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2393.0 2235.4752809 107% => OK
No of words: 408.0 442.535393258 92% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.86519607843 5.05705443957 116% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.49433085973 4.55969084622 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.03803641732 2.79657885939 109% => OK
Unique words: 243.0 215.323595506 113% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.595588235294 0.4932671777 121% => OK
syllable_count: 720.9 704.065955056 102% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.59117977528 113% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 6.24550561798 160% => OK
Article: 1.0 4.99550561798 20% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 3.10617977528 97% => OK
Conjunction: 7.0 1.77640449438 394% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 6.0 4.38483146067 137% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 25.0 20.2370786517 124% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 23.0359550562 69% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 35.7568678718 60.3974514979 59% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 95.72 118.986275619 80% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.32 23.4991977007 69% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.56 5.21951772744 107% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 7.80617977528 77% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 10.2758426966 68% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 15.0 5.13820224719 292% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.83258426966 62% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.246565330432 0.243740707755 101% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.070605472403 0.0831039109588 85% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0860574555742 0.0758088955206 114% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.155379456678 0.150359130593 103% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0502981197626 0.0667264976115 75% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.4 14.1392134831 102% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 38.31 48.8420337079 78% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.1743820225 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.47 12.1639044944 135% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.84 8.38706741573 105% => OK
difficult_words: 114.0 100.480337079 113% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 11.8971910112 63% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 11.2143820225 75% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => 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.