Governments should not fund any scientific research whose consequences are unclear.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, describe specific circumstances in which adopting the recommendation would or would not be advantageous and explain how these examples shape your position.
Scientific researches lead to new discoveries, or consolidate an existing theory about something. In these cases the result and all others scnerios are known and clear but it some cases the scope may be blurred or outcome may come with consequences which may even be fatal. The following prompt indicates the government shall not fund any researches which don't have a clear scope or may have catastrophic side effects. I agree with the the given prompt for the following reasons listed below.
If the scope if opaque or the stakes of the consequences are high one should consider whether to carry on with the project or not, and seek the government aid or not. The government should deny any such requests where, the side effects bring any jeopardy to the researcher, public or environment etc. For instance, if one want to find out what happens when waste is dumped in open parks and ponds and conducts a research in a public park even with permission, he may harm the enviroment even when he removes all the waste after the experiment is completed, as it may kill the fauna and flora of the park and pond. Conducting such a experiment in a simulated environment is also not favourable as still wildlife will be harmed when exposed to effects of waste dumping. So, such experiments should not be backed by the government.
The experiment which don't have a clear outcomes may lead to undesirable outcomes which may be harmful to the experimenter. for instacne, when developing new technologies which work on radicoactive power sources one may be exposed to a lot of radiation harming himself and also without clear understading and uclear scope of the reseach one can put a lot of lives and danger. He may have the desire to bring a positive change but when the results are clouded it may cause more harm while not bering any fruit. So, it can do more harm than good : for this reason govenrment shouln't fund such researches in dangerous fields where the result is clouded.
Funding scientific reseached whithout clear conclusions can incur heavy losses for the government, a typical experiment may last for 6 months to several years. The longer and more compliacted it becomes the more money the government needs to pour onto the growing sapling. Which just may fail before it bears any fruit or may bear poisionous fruits as explained in earlier points. One cannot be ceratin about a result and there is always a chance of failing a scientific experiment. But failures lead to learning and evelopment of new ideas and researches. So funding such reseaches, becomes a vicious as well as virtuous cycle which requires loads of money, the government may want to base it's decision onto the funds it has availble for such work.
Not all resarches lead to results but some lead to learning and for this purspose the government may fund such projects if it has the available funds. However the points stated above strengethen the point why governemt should think about it's decision to do so. With this I rest my case on the following prompt.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 357, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...ent shall not fund any researches which dont have a clear scope or may have catastro...
^^^^
Line 1, column 433, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: the
...catastrophic side effects. I agree with the the given prompt for the following reasons ...
^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 433, Rule ID: DT_DT[1]
Message: Maybe you need to remove one determiner so that only 'the' or 'the' is left.
Suggestion: the; the
...catastrophic side effects. I agree with the the given prompt for the following reasons ...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 14, Rule ID: IF_IS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'is'?
Suggestion: is
...g reasons listed below. If the scope if opaque or the stakes of the consequence...
^^
Line 3, column 411, Rule ID: A_UNCOUNTABLE[1]
Message: Uncountable nouns are usually not used with an indefinite article. Use simply 'research'.
Suggestion: research
...ed in open parks and ponds and conducts a research in a public park even with permission, ...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 631, 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
...a of the park and pond. Conducting such a experiment in a simulated environment i...
^
Line 5, column 22, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...he government. The experiment which dont have a clear outcomes may lead to undes...
^^^^
Line 5, column 124, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: For
...ich may be harmful to the experimenter. for instacne, when developing new technolog...
^^^
Line 9, column 152, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: However,
...projects if it has the available funds. However the points stated above strengethen the...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, however, if, may, so, still, then, well, while, for instance, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 19.5258426966 77% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 26.0 12.4196629213 209% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 27.0 14.8657303371 182% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 11.3162921348 124% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 33.0505617978 64% => OK
Preposition: 51.0 58.6224719101 87% => OK
Nominalization: 20.0 12.9106741573 155% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2528.0 2235.4752809 113% => OK
No of words: 524.0 442.535393258 118% => OK
Chars per words: 4.82442748092 5.05705443957 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.7844588288 4.55969084622 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.67436711313 2.79657885939 96% => OK
Unique words: 257.0 215.323595506 119% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.490458015267 0.4932671777 99% => OK
syllable_count: 774.0 704.065955056 110% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59117977528 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 6.24550561798 64% => OK
Article: 7.0 4.99550561798 140% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 3.10617977528 129% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.77640449438 169% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.38483146067 46% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 20.2370786517 109% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 23.0359550562 100% => OK
Sentence length SD: 59.2470140824 60.3974514979 98% => OK
Chars per sentence: 114.909090909 118.986275619 97% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.8181818182 23.4991977007 101% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.77272727273 5.21951772744 72% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 9.0 7.80617977528 115% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 10.2758426966 29% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 14.0 5.13820224719 272% => 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: 0.179037230266 0.243740707755 73% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.058489755768 0.0831039109588 70% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0354802884607 0.0758088955206 47% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.110073826293 0.150359130593 73% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0333683709991 0.0667264976115 50% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.2 14.1392134831 93% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 56.59 48.8420337079 116% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.1743820225 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.97 12.1639044944 90% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.33 8.38706741573 99% => OK
difficult_words: 118.0 100.480337079 117% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 11.8971910112 92% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.2143820225 100% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.7820224719 93% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.