Governments should place few, if any, restrictions on scientific research and development.
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 research and development has grown in leaps and bounds in the past two decades. Government policies have had tremendous impact on the rate of this growth. The prompt recommends that government should place few restrictions, if necessary, on scientific research and development. I strongly agree with this recommendation and argue with the following two reasons.
To begin, research is the backbone of many developed nations hence scientists should be encouraged and given the freedom to exercise their research prowess. For instance, if a nation places restrictions on scientific research, most researchers would be discouraged. They would be reluctant to tread paths that have restrictions because naturally, people prefer to travel on paths with the least resistance. Such neglected paths may possess in them answers to the pressing problems the nation may be confronted with. If the paths researchers detests due to restrictions are pregnant with solutions to global challenges, these challenges will persist and continue to affect the nation and the world at large. In addition, research is hard work on its own, and researchers should not be forced to go through more work of dealing with restrictions. They should be encouraged work more effectively through absolute support from the government.
Secondly, most researchers are people of integrity and should be trusted by the government to contribute their research skills to the development of the nation. Training researchers is a wholesome task that takes many years to be completed. Along with research skills, these professionals have also been trained on how to apply the skill they have acquired. Otherwise, the training institution has failed by giving a sharp knife to a child that can injure itself with it. In the university, for instance, the training of a chemist is not restricted to the knowledge of chemistry. Courses are designed to build him or her, not only in the research area, but also in personality. Therefore, the nation should trust them enough to do what is right at every instance. There is no need to put in restrictions that would hinder the creativity of these well-trained professionals fighting for the common good of everyone.
Others may argue that these researchers have tendencies to engage in unhealthy research practices. However, is that not exactly why there should be no restrictions so that researchers who have such tendencies can be sieved out and their licenses retrieved from them so that they can no longer carry out research? Placing restrictions for such would only increase researchers who have tendencies for unethical practices.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 940, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...h absolute support from the government. Secondly, most researchers are people of...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, hence, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, therefore, well, for instance, in addition
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 19.5258426966 108% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 19.0 12.4196629213 153% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 14.8657303371 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 11.3162921348 97% => OK
Pronoun: 31.0 33.0505617978 94% => OK
Preposition: 62.0 58.6224719101 106% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 12.9106741573 108% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2236.0 2235.4752809 100% => OK
No of words: 419.0 442.535393258 95% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.33651551313 5.05705443957 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.52432199235 4.55969084622 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.03078194193 2.79657885939 108% => OK
Unique words: 211.0 215.323595506 98% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.503579952267 0.4932671777 102% => OK
syllable_count: 654.3 704.065955056 93% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 6.24550561798 80% => OK
Article: 4.0 4.99550561798 80% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 3.10617977528 97% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.77640449438 113% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.38483146067 114% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 20.2370786517 109% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 23.0359550562 82% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 35.5340890921 60.3974514979 59% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 101.636363636 118.986275619 85% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.0454545455 23.4991977007 81% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.54545454545 5.21951772744 87% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 10.2758426966 107% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 5.13820224719 136% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.83258426966 83% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.203571814891 0.243740707755 84% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0724482725024 0.0831039109588 87% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0513679703942 0.0758088955206 68% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.14462269927 0.150359130593 96% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0470047639438 0.0667264976115 70% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.2 14.1392134831 93% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 48.8420337079 107% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.92365168539 39% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.1743820225 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.69 12.1639044944 113% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.72 8.38706741573 104% => OK
difficult_words: 110.0 100.480337079 109% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.0 11.8971910112 59% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.2143820225 86% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.7820224719 119% => 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: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.