Governments should not fund any scientific research whose consequences are unclear.
No matter how obstinate, banal or talented , people cannot deny the paramount effect and profound ramification of scientific researches in human`s long history. Sometimes, the consequences of those scientific researches may be unclear when scientist start to do their project, and I totally disagree with the idea that governments should not fund those scientific researches just because they cannot provide lucid consequences of their ongoing study.
As a matter of fact, there are so many great discoveries in science history was made by coincidence and did not have a pre-designed purpose or clear predictable consequence before they eventually generated the astonishing outcomes. In practice, it is also very difficult for researchers to predict every subtle consequence of every kind of scientific researches.
Take, for example, the discovery of the law of gravity which was made by Newton in 18 century.
Can we ask Newton to predict a detailed consequence-which, in this case, is the law of gravity-about his research before he sat down under that famous apple tree? Obviously we cannot. It will be extremely detrimental to science advance if governments or any other funders only care about the possible uncertain consequence of each research because there are various random situations and uncertainties in real scientific research and development
In addition, it will pose a negative leverage on innovation and creative thinking which is the main source of science discovery if governments stop funding scientific research whose consequences are unclear. Innovation and creative thinking have grown entwined with modern scientific research and technology advance and played an irreplaceable role in so many impressive inventions and discoveries. But it will eliminate this important spirit from scientific research if governments focus more on determined consequences of research because some inspired innovations cannot be predicted until they finally hit you. Should governments forgo this kind of creative research or innovation just because they cannot give a clear consequence? The answer is negative.
scientific researches are playing an increasingly significant role in this era of technology and knowledge and governments are always the main supporter and funder of today`s scientific research. So governments should be careful and realistic about their funding policy. And as matter of this issue, I maintain that it will be awful if governments do not fund those scientific researches whose consequences are unclear.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 43, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma, but not before the comma
Suggestion: ,
... matter how obstinate, banal or talented , people cannot deny the paramount effect...
^^
Line 7, column 87, Rule ID: CD_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun 'century' seems to be countable, so consider using: 'centuries'.
Suggestion: centuries
... gravity which was made by Newton in 18 century. Can we ask Newton to predict a detai...
^^^^^^^
Line 17, column 1, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Scientific
...nsequence? The answer is negative. scientific researches are playing an increasingly ...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, if, may, so, for example, in addition, kind of, as a matter of fact
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 19.5258426966 87% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.4196629213 113% => OK
Conjunction : 20.0 14.8657303371 135% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 11.3162921348 80% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 30.0 33.0505617978 91% => OK
Preposition: 44.0 58.6224719101 75% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 12.9106741573 132% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2188.0 2235.4752809 98% => OK
No of words: 383.0 442.535393258 87% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.71279373368 5.05705443957 113% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.42384287591 4.55969084622 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.21930512844 2.79657885939 115% => OK
Unique words: 204.0 215.323595506 95% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.532637075718 0.4932671777 108% => OK
syllable_count: 681.3 704.065955056 97% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.59117977528 113% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 6.24550561798 64% => OK
Article: 3.0 4.99550561798 60% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 3.10617977528 32% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.77640449438 169% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.38483146067 68% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 20.2370786517 74% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 25.0 23.0359550562 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 108.744961569 60.3974514979 180% => OK
Chars per sentence: 145.866666667 118.986275619 123% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.5333333333 23.4991977007 109% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.8 5.21951772744 111% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 4.97078651685 121% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 7.80617977528 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 10.2758426966 68% => 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: 0.498667602155 0.243740707755 205% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.160943774949 0.0831039109588 194% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.138892398837 0.0758088955206 183% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.247307321608 0.150359130593 164% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.157275568537 0.0667264976115 236% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 18.2 14.1392134831 129% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 29.18 48.8420337079 60% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.4 12.1743820225 126% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.13 12.1639044944 133% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.96 8.38706741573 107% => OK
difficult_words: 99.0 100.480337079 99% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 20.5 11.8971910112 172% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.2143820225 107% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.