Governments should not fund any scientific research whose consequences are unclear.
Write a response in which you discuss your views on the policy and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider the possible consequences of implementing the policy and explain how these consequences shape your position.
Would it be possible to know what we know about the universe and science, if it weren’t for scientists who made the obscured clear to us? I would say no. The contributions of the world’s scientist have led us to comprehend what happens, how it happens and when it happens. Like the rain cycle or gravity. In the beginning, these concepts were also arcane. We would not be learning these new concepts if the scientist researching them were not backed up financially by the governments. Reflecting on inventing a space craft to land on Mars for the first time and Transplanting a human body organ.
NASA (The National Aeronautics and Space Administration), an entity branched by the US Federal Government to promote and pioneer in Aeronautics and Space Aviation is the best example that could be given in order to prove this issue. The initiative by NASA to land on Mars through various attempts, theories and formulations to accomplish the insurmountable came true and Neil Armstrong was the first man to land on Mars. There was no certainty that this mission would be successful and there were various attempts, in the beginning, on NASA’s part to fulfill this goal but the consequences were unpredictable. Yet, the federal government supported this cause and funded these researches.
On the other hand, there are various world organizations like WHO (World Health Organization) that supports the endeavor of doctors and other biologist in the research conducted for organ transplant or regarding other pandemics, that could harm the earth’s nature and environment. Surely, the revolutionary idea that a person’s organ could cure another being was worth supporting by the government. There was no proof that the results would be fruitful and the theory would actually work. Yet, people continued to strive for it achieved the results of successfully transplanting a human organ. Had this pioneering research would not be financed by the government, we wouldn’t have been seeing this day, where millions of lives are saved like this.
To conclude, I would say that the only certainty is uncertainty and that initially the results and consequences of all of the scientific researches are esoteric and unpredictable, yet what we don’t know is what drives towards knowing that. Hence, if the Government will stop funding the scientific research just so its results are unclear, that will always be the case and we will not be progressing.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 116, Rule ID: ALL_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'all the'.
Suggestion: all the
...itially the results and consequences of all of the scientific researches are esoteric and ...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, first, hence, if, regarding, so, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 25.0 19.5258426966 128% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.4196629213 113% => OK
Conjunction : 21.0 14.8657303371 141% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 11.3162921348 124% => OK
Pronoun: 37.0 33.0505617978 112% => OK
Preposition: 41.0 58.6224719101 70% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 12.9106741573 77% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2078.0 2235.4752809 93% => OK
No of words: 400.0 442.535393258 90% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.195 5.05705443957 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.472135955 4.55969084622 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.07886342666 2.79657885939 110% => OK
Unique words: 209.0 215.323595506 97% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.5225 0.4932671777 106% => OK
syllable_count: 617.4 704.065955056 88% => 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: 5.0 4.99550561798 100% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.38483146067 137% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 20.2370786517 89% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 23.0359550562 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 70.6854447448 60.3974514979 117% => OK
Chars per sentence: 115.444444444 118.986275619 97% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.2222222222 23.4991977007 95% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.94444444444 5.21951772744 76% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 10.2758426966 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 5.13820224719 97% => OK
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: 0.0644573449211 0.243740707755 26% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0217278000221 0.0831039109588 26% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0245628390365 0.0758088955206 32% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0450003225439 0.150359130593 30% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0223710439234 0.0667264976115 34% => 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: 14.2 14.1392134831 100% => OK
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: 13.18 12.1639044944 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.79 8.38706741573 105% => OK
difficult_words: 103.0 100.480337079 103% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.5 11.8971910112 55% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.2143820225 96% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.7820224719 93% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Better to have 5/6 paragraphs with 3/4 arguments. And try always support/against one side but compare two sides, like this:
para 1: introduction
para 2: reason 1. address both of the views presented for reason 1
para 3: reason 2. address both of the views presented for reason 2
para 4: reason 3. address both of the views presented for reason 3
para 5: reason 4. address both of the views presented for reason 4 (optional)
para 6: conclusion.
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 16.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.