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.
The prompt urges the government not to take fund any scientific research whose consequences are unclear. For some obvious reasons I would like to be "mostly disgaree" with the given concept and hereby obliged to provide necessary viewpoints in defense of my position.
In the are of research there is hardly any specific answer of the question "what is the clarity of this research outcome". It is because of no matter how much one is preknowledgable about his contemporary research he or she will still is still vulnerable to do something else than he or she premeditated. This is not actually the fault of that individual rather it is the nature of scientific research. Science has always been the subject of vulnerablity and changes according to the new evidences. For example - previously it was belived that the sun actually mopving round the sun. But after the acknowledgement of many facts it has come into believed that the earth rounds the sun in actual case. So, it is pretty much obvious that science will be subjected to change along with the new evidences and facts discovered by scientists. Therefore in most cases, scientists do not have the clear picture of the outcome, nevertheless, they can specualte certain of those cases. However, does this vulnerability from the science is meant to stop fund from the government ? Obviously no. It is because - about most research cases the outcomes are vague and if the governemtn continues to preculde fund for all those then scientific arena will never be developed as there will be no chance of innovation. Scientists are provided fund and they are ascribed certain amount of time within which they has to come to a conclusion about that research subject. Scientist works that certain topics getting help by the fund provided by the government. If the fund is not sufficient or is not at all then they (scientist) will not be able exploit many matters of their interest and consequently there will be no usher of evolvement. That is why, stopping fund based on the ambiguety of a scientific research will not be a good idea.
Also, interesting fact is that - it has been seen in many cases that the respective scientist who has been conducting research of one arena, has become successful in inventing a new phenomena. For example - a chemist who has largely been wokring on the polymer chain formation might be able to invent something about the other characteristics of the polymer - but not the chain formation. Also, it can be the case that - he even did not find anything new about the polymer at all, rather has surprised himself with the innovation of other characteristics of materials - kind of universal one. Now, will he not be credited with the innovation for finding a new outcome. Of course he will be although it was not his intended programe, he has been successful to provide human being with something new. So, if the governement does not fund this type of scientific research then it is actually precluding not only the possiblity of a new innovation but also the chances of other revolutionary findings as well. Only based on the probability of the outcome the funding decision should not be made as the outcome will fluctuate - in many cases it will be failed one, but one successful one is tantamount to the numerous failed one.
Even with the vagueness of scientific research, the possiblity can be judged in somewhat generally. For example - in the conspicuous cases, such as - helping the humanity to be immortal - is a kind of impossible task, or the idea of escaping death might not be sound enough to secure sufficient fund from the government. This is becasue most of these ideasare absolute truth and no exemplary research can turn it down to be false. Now, if the government funds lavishly for this impossible project then it might not be withstant to the outcome as the upshot will always be failure. Another case is that - the government should provide fund regarding tough research works or in least regarding a more daunting resarching fund - should prioritize the researcher or the instituitions or the background of the researcehr. It is important because it is more plausible to get a good outcome from an experienced resrarcher even regarding a tough topic rather than from a relatively new researcher regarding a easy topic attributing to their expereicne and work history. Although there will always be some anomaly, nevertheless, the government shoudl take more mature decision regarding funding most of those topics.
So, looking at all the points and views mentioned above, it is not recommended that the government should stop fund depending on the clarity of the outcome of the scientific researchs. Rather it is suggested to take more balanced and cautious measures to fund those scientific projects.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 4, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
...points in defense of my position. In the are of research there is hardly any specifi...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 847, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Therefore,
...ces and facts discovered by scientists. Therefore in most cases, scientists do not have t...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 1402, Rule ID: NON3PRS_VERB[2]
Message: The pronoun 'they' must be used with a non-third-person form of a verb: 'have'
Suggestion: have
...ertain amount of time within which they has to come to a conclusion about that rese...
^^^
Line 5, column 183, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[2]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'phenomenon'?
Suggestion: phenomenon
...as become successful in inventing a new phenomena. For example - a chemist who has largel...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 930, Rule ID: NEW_XX[1]
Message: Use simply 'innovation'.
Suggestion: innovation
...precluding not only the possiblity of a new innovation but also the chances of other revolutio...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 1000, 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
...m a relatively new researcher regarding a easy topic attributing to their experei...
^
Line 9, column 186, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Rather,
...he outcome of the scientific researchs. Rather it is suggested to take more balanced a...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, consequently, however, if, look, nevertheless, regarding, so, still, then, therefore, well, as to, for example, kind of, of course, such as, in many cases, in most cases
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 56.0 19.5258426966 287% => Less to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 25.0 12.4196629213 201% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 21.0 14.8657303371 141% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 11.3162921348 141% => OK
Pronoun: 59.0 33.0505617978 179% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 103.0 58.6224719101 176% => OK
Nominalization: 22.0 12.9106741573 170% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 4019.0 2235.4752809 180% => OK
No of words: 806.0 442.535393258 182% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.98635235732 5.05705443957 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 5.32823977812 4.55969084622 117% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.92414790794 2.79657885939 105% => OK
Unique words: 332.0 215.323595506 154% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.411910669975 0.4932671777 84% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 1257.3 704.065955056 179% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 11.0 6.24550561798 176% => OK
Article: 3.0 4.99550561798 60% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 3.10617977528 129% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.77640449438 169% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.38483146067 68% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 32.0 20.2370786517 158% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 23.0359550562 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 54.3736351063 60.3974514979 90% => OK
Chars per sentence: 125.59375 118.986275619 106% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.1875 23.4991977007 107% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.9375 5.21951772744 114% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 7.0 7.80617977528 90% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 17.0 10.2758426966 165% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 5.13820224719 214% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.83258426966 103% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.130347629219 0.243740707755 53% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0442729780216 0.0831039109588 53% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0524536780797 0.0758088955206 69% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.104893769035 0.150359130593 70% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0401404047962 0.0667264976115 60% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.7 14.1392134831 104% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 46.1 48.8420337079 94% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.0 12.1743820225 107% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.96 12.1639044944 98% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.3 8.38706741573 99% => OK
difficult_words: 175.0 100.480337079 174% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 11.8971910112 101% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.2143820225 107% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 30 minutes.
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.