Governments should place few, if any, restrictions on scientific research and development.
Scientific research needs freedom, such claim is largely conceded. Since the beneficials brought by it to researchers are unbounded. However, the science should be arranged if its aim is to serve the society and the world. Science should be conducted on the basis of demands nations require. And to sweep out the possibility effectively that researchers' intention of research need to be promised to be positive.
The freedom giving to researchers always means that they have rights to assign their researching missions according to their own expectations. Under that way, surprisingly, the effectiveness of their study becomes relatively higher, in contrary to what people out of such field used to speculate. And there are reasons explaining that seeming ambivalence. The first one is, reason why researchers becoming researchers is their diligence and intelligence, which is different than worker in society. For workers in industries, they hardly see their work as any high-expectable and contributable task beneficial the humans, but researchers experience uncountable time studying papers and conducting experiments fully construe the meaning of their jobs. While the second one, is that they need spaces to hypothesize and inference. Researches, especially pioneering ones, requiring imaginations and luminousness to dig out way leading future study, which is a pattern totally different from ordinary study. Thus, leaving them some spaces could be pivotal.
But the boundaries between placing restrictions and leaving spaces are not wholly conspicuous, suggesting that the angles of the both could be heterogeneous to ensure them getting enough freedom while moving on a correct way that the government wants. Just as mentioned before, scientific research enhancing and revolutionizing our understanding of the world. But why we can feel it novel? I suggest the answer is that fitting our needs. Imaging Nokia a promising business world years ago bankrupting is ridiculous before it really happened. Nokia defends its leader role in market for its pragmatism and it tries to make it as its best-selling brand sign, but unfortunately, it fails in that it chose a wrong way to dive in. same reason could be suitable for this situation too. Researcher needs governments to lead them to a brighter, or even, lucrative future that benefits both of them.
In sum, research itself needs to be space-wealthy, but the outer edge of it should be arranged by the government by using statistics and questionnaires that contribute to promising researchers are on the right way.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 68, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “Since” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...reedom, such claim is largely conceded. Since the beneficials brought by it to resear...
^^^^^
Line 1, column 343, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'researchers'' or 'researcher's'?
Suggestion: researchers'; researcher's
...ep out the possibility effectively that researchers intention of research need to be promis...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 475, Rule ID: RATHER_THEN[2]
Message: Did you mean 'different 'from''? 'Different than' is often considered colloquial style.
Suggestion: from
...ce and intelligence, which is different than worker in society. For workers in indus...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, if, really, second, so, thus, while
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 19.5258426966 113% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.4196629213 72% => OK
Conjunction : 18.0 14.8657303371 121% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 11.3162921348 115% => OK
Pronoun: 42.0 33.0505617978 127% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 49.0 58.6224719101 84% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 12.9106741573 85% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2182.0 2235.4752809 98% => OK
No of words: 401.0 442.535393258 91% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.44139650873 5.05705443957 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.47492842339 4.55969084622 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.14676065166 2.79657885939 113% => OK
Unique words: 236.0 215.323595506 110% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.588528678304 0.4932671777 119% => OK
syllable_count: 657.9 704.065955056 93% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 6.24550561798 48% => OK
Article: 4.0 4.99550561798 80% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 8.0 1.77640449438 450% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 4.38483146067 91% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 20.2370786517 109% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 23.0359550562 78% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 64.2763436041 60.3974514979 106% => OK
Chars per sentence: 99.1818181818 118.986275619 83% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.2272727273 23.4991977007 78% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.54545454545 5.21951772744 49% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 7.80617977528 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 10.2758426966 107% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 5.13820224719 19% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 10.0 4.83258426966 207% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.204583328534 0.243740707755 84% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0523517267108 0.0831039109588 63% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0524678033666 0.0758088955206 69% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.130270017744 0.150359130593 87% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.033759591644 0.0667264976115 51% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.3 14.1392134831 94% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 48.8420337079 109% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.1743820225 85% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.27 12.1639044944 117% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.1 8.38706741573 109% => OK
difficult_words: 116.0 100.480337079 115% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.0 11.8971910112 59% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.2143820225 82% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.7820224719 85% => 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.