Governments should not fund any scientific research whose consequences are unclear.
The author of the issue contends that whether or not the government should fund any scientific research with the vague outcomes. I generally agree with the existence of the financial support. Among the countless reasons, I will mention to most conspicuous ones in what follows.
The first exquisite reason justifying my idea is that there is no warranted outcome for the scientific studies, as each study requires a long span to lead the ultimate result. As a matter of fact, each scientific research takes series of examinations and observation till it presents the result. This process in some cases prolongs to thirty years as in the analyses related to the astrology. Therefore, the accurate prediction about the end is an arduous task. Maybe, the scientist initiates a research which will case to the particular outcome; however, during the study based on the introduces the new elements, the direction of the research will alter. A vivid example can be given is the instance of the belief related to the existence of the water in the moon. Previously, it was assumed that the moon is water free; since during its formation process, it was too hot to contains the waters. On the other hand, based on precise examination occurred in the moon, the existence of the water is verified. This example lucidly illustrates the variation of the science in its path. Consequently, forecasting its outcome is impossible.
Next equally striking point which advocates my idea is that the failures in the scientific examinations have a crucial role in the future success. Actually, the current experiences considered as the drawback is valuable for the future usage in any areas, inasmuch as it restrict the feasible failures and pave the path to the guaranteed result. The scientific study is not exceptional from this fact too. The past mistakes depict the possible error-leading option. Thus, the scientist avoids that option. According to the noteworthy, intelligence survey conducted in my country, approximately the seventy percent of the success project in the scientific projects in Iran shape based on the previous examined but failed options.
Nevertheless, as far as this reason is concerned, I do not agree with the author in some extents. In a case which the society is suffering the lack of affordable jobs, or hunger, which are the prime demands of each human being, the monetary adherence for the vague scientific research is not a right and fair task. This sponsoring is a sound job while the citizens possess a conventional life and welfare. Otherwise, the success in the scientific field will be useless for the society, since their pain is deep rooted and knotty problems and do not solve by these achievements.
To wrap it up, all aforementioned reasons lead to the conclusion that the financial support of the government from the scientific research is necessary if the people are on welfare. This support should be continuous since the outcome of the research is unpredictable and the failure in this spot is valuable.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 39, Rule ID: WHETHER[7]
Message: Perhaps you can shorten this phrase to just 'whether'. It is correct though if you mean 'regardless of whether'.
Suggestion: whether
The author of the issue contends that whether or not the government should fund any scientif...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 878, Rule ID: TO_NON_BASE[1]
Message: The verb after "to" should be in the base form: 'contain'.
Suggestion: contain
...ts formation process, it was too hot to contains the waters. On the other hand, based on...
^^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['actually', 'but', 'consequently', 'first', 'however', 'if', 'may', 'nevertheless', 'so', 'therefore', 'thus', 'while', 'as to', 'as a matter of fact', 'in some cases', 'on the other hand']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.239130434783 0.240241500013 100% => OK
Verbs: 0.135869565217 0.157235817809 86% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0996376811594 0.0880659088768 113% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0416666666667 0.0497285424764 84% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0271739130435 0.0444667217837 61% => OK
Prepositions: 0.119565217391 0.12292977631 97% => OK
Participles: 0.036231884058 0.0406280797675 89% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.87865176776 2.79330140395 103% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0199275362319 0.030933414821 64% => OK
Particles: 0.0018115942029 0.0016655270985 109% => OK
Determiners: 0.179347826087 0.0997080785238 180% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0126811594203 0.0249443105267 51% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.00905797101449 0.0148568991511 61% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 3044.0 2732.02544248 111% => OK
No of words: 500.0 452.878318584 110% => OK
Chars per words: 6.088 6.0361032391 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.72870804502 4.58838876751 103% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.364 0.366273622748 99% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.314 0.280924506359 112% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.238 0.200843997647 118% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.144 0.132149295362 109% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.87865176776 2.79330140395 103% => OK
Unique words: 254.0 219.290929204 116% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.508 0.48968727796 104% => OK
Word variations: 60.0784676418 55.4138127331 108% => OK
How many sentences: 25.0 20.6194690265 121% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 23.380412469 86% => OK
Sentence length SD: 53.5008635444 59.4972553346 90% => OK
Chars per sentence: 121.76 141.124799967 86% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.0 23.380412469 86% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.64 0.674092028746 95% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.94800884956 101% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.21349557522 38% => OK
Readability: 51.4 51.4728631049 100% => OK
Elegance: 1.92920353982 1.64882698954 117% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0628441863621 0.391690518653 16% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.100888454003 0.123202303941 82% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0603332575475 0.077325440228 78% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.603393193876 0.547984918172 110% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.170056264416 0.149214159877 114% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0323793901967 0.161403998019 20% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0456736096551 0.0892212321368 51% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.605004071232 0.385218514788 157% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0766871504651 0.0692045440612 111% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.066070273395 0.275328986314 24% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0324713300643 0.0653680567796 50% => The ideas may be duplicated in paragraphs.
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 10.4325221239 67% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 5.30420353982 170% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 9.0 4.88274336283 184% => Less neutral sentences wanted.
Positive topic words: 2.0 7.22455752212 28% => More positive topic words wanted.
Negative topic words: 6.0 3.66592920354 164% => OK
Neutral topic words: 4.0 2.70907079646 148% => OK
Total topic words: 12.0 13.5995575221 88% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader.
Rates: 16.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: This is not the final score. 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.