governments should not fund any scientific research whose consequences are unclear.
The speaker asserts that government should not fund any scientific research whose results are unpredictable. However, in my point of view, this statement is too arbitrary and the circumstances can be disparate for developing countries and developed countries, also for potentially beneficial and harmful researches.
On one hand, there is no deny that developing countries, compare with developed countries, have relatively limited resources, fundings, which means that available money should be spend primarily on things that can contribute to the foreseeable improvement of the country. For example, a great number of the cities in South Africa are confronting with problems such as scarce food, inadequate health facilities, and so on. In a place where people are still struggling to live their live, it is little bit unethical for the government to distribute their money on scientific research with unclear consequences instead of helping the communities with people’s hunger, their unemployment, their well-being. For developed countries, the situation is different since they have less pressing issues that requires money. In my opinion, governments of developed countries should support scientific research even though the consequences are unclear.
On the other hand, the purpose of the research should be examined first no matter for developing or developed countries. For example, if a scientist try to do research on something that might be harmful, things like toxicology, for the general wellbeing of human. then, the government should definitely refuse to provide the fund for it, no matter it is the developing countries’ or developed countries’ government. But if it is something that are potentially beneficial to the future development of the world, such as a certain vaccine that helps to strengthen people’s immune system is absolutely worth funding, then developing countries should rationally distribute a small portion of fund for it whereas developed countries should fully support the research.
In sum, the speaker’s assertion is an over generalization and should consider more comprehensively for various circumstances that might weaken the statement.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...eneficial and harmful researches. On one hand, there is no deny that devel...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 180, Rule ID: SHOULD_BE_DO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'spent'?
Suggestion: spent
...ch means that available money should be spend primarily on things that can contribute...
^^^^^
Line 9, column 494, Rule ID: LITTLE_BIT[1]
Message: Reduce redundancy by using 'little' or 'bit'.
Suggestion: little; bit
...ll struggling to live their live, it is little bit unethical for the government to distrib...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 19, column 265, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Then
...gy, for the general wellbeing of human. then, the government should definitely refus...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, so, still, then, well, whereas, for example, such as, in my opinion, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.5258426966 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.4196629213 97% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 14.8657303371 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 12.0 11.3162921348 106% => OK
Pronoun: 22.0 33.0505617978 67% => OK
Preposition: 34.0 58.6224719101 58% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 12.0 12.9106741573 93% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1926.0 2235.4752809 86% => OK
No of words: 327.0 442.535393258 74% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.88990825688 5.05705443957 116% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.25242769721 4.55969084622 93% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.27993306181 2.79657885939 117% => OK
Unique words: 179.0 215.323595506 83% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.547400611621 0.4932671777 111% => OK
syllable_count: 566.1 704.065955056 80% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 6.24550561798 64% => OK
Article: 6.0 4.99550561798 120% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 3.10617977528 32% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.77640449438 169% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.38483146067 137% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 20.2370786517 59% => 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: 27.0 23.0359550562 117% => OK
Sentence length SD: 75.8172144041 60.3974514979 126% => OK
Chars per sentence: 160.5 118.986275619 135% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.25 23.4991977007 116% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.75 5.21951772744 187% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 7.80617977528 51% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 10.2758426966 58% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 5.13820224719 78% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.83258426966 41% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.265551169025 0.243740707755 109% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.126399513348 0.0831039109588 152% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.163431648916 0.0758088955206 216% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.158323906086 0.150359130593 105% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0779183070919 0.0667264976115 117% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 19.9 14.1392134831 141% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 35.61 48.8420337079 73% => OK
smog_index: 13.0 7.92365168539 164% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.0 12.1743820225 123% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 17.18 12.1639044944 141% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.18 8.38706741573 109% => OK
difficult_words: 87.0 100.480337079 87% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 16.0 11.8971910112 134% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.8 11.2143820225 114% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.7820224719 110% => 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.
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.