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.
The Government is obligated to protect its' people from various dangers including the flagrant usage of science technology. Consequently, it seems cogent to limit some parts of the scientific discipline to obviate from the perils but, these limitations should be considered after a breakthrough in human knowledge is made because it may hamper creativity of the great minds.
Admittedly, the government's urge to take a safe path an forestall all sorts of potential danger is understandable. There have been many cases where a scientific knowledge has been used in a destructive manner. For instance, the development of satellites has helped us to facilitate communication and the utilization of GPS, but also helps guide long distance missiles in military situations. Not to mention the surreptitious usage of satellites as spying. Hence, the government should not be blamed for the obsession for wanting to invest in technologies that seem insipid or propitious: they already are familiar with the consequences of misused technology.
Nevertheless, the restrictions on the development of human knowledge could be set after the publishing is finished. Until the discovery is utilized in the real world, nobody will be able to foretell the consequences it will bring. It is the government's and the scientist's common responsibility to ensure that these findings are used in a humanitarian manner, not the other way around. A representative example would be the special relativity theory of Einstein: it both contributed to a mass destruction weapon, and a clean and efficient power source. Therefore, instead of limiting the possibility of a broadened human intellect, the leaders should be aware of the usage of those information and make sure that they are used for good causes.
Last but not least, the circumscription of research may lead to a debilitated imagination and innovation in the field. The knowledge of humans has been able to expand because of great minds of each time were able to make breakthroughs. However, if we hinder the minds of scientists, the human knowledge will be stagnated: no more inventions that make our lives simple, no more pharmaceuticals that meets up with our needs, no deeper understanding about the universe. Instead of censuring on the topics of what researchers are interested, the government should be aware of the consequences and restrict the outcomes to enable the human race to develop once more.
In conclusion, although the government's stance to preclude latent predicaments to ensure public and world safety, the restrictions should be taken after the research is finished. A early limitation will only stop the humans understanding of the universe.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 34, Rule ID: ALLOW_TO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'taking'? Or maybe you should add a pronoun? In active voice, 'urge' + 'to' takes an object, usually a pronoun.
Suggestion: taking
.... Admittedly, the governments urge to take a safe path an forestall all sorts of p...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 54, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'a' instead of 'an' if the following word doesn't start with a vowel sound, e.g. 'a sentence', 'a university'
Suggestion: a
...he governments urge to take a safe path an forestall all sorts of potential danger...
^^
Line 5, column 54, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
...he governments urge to take a safe path an forestall all sorts of potential danger is unders...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 149, Rule ID: A_UNCOUNTABLE[4]
Message: Uncountable nouns are usually not used with an indefinite article. Use simply 'scientific knowledge'.
Suggestion: scientific knowledge
...dable. There have been many cases where a scientific knowledge has been used in a destructive manner. ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 186, Rule ID: IN_A_X_MANNER[1]
Message: Consider replacing "in a destructive manner" with adverb for "destructive"; eg, "in a hasty manner" with "hastily".
...re a scientific knowledge has been used in a destructive manner. For instance, the development of satel...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 334, Rule ID: IN_A_X_MANNER[1]
Message: Consider replacing "in a humanitarian manner" with adverb for "humanitarian"; eg, "in a hasty manner" with "hastily".
... to ensure that these findings are used in a humanitarian manner, not the other way around. A representa...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 676, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'this information' or 'those informations'?
Suggestion: this information; those informations
...leaders should be aware of the usage of those information and make sure that they are used for go...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 17, column 29, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'governments'' or 'government's'?
Suggestion: governments'; government's
... more. In conclusion, although the governments stance to preclude latent predicaments ...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 17, column 180, 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
...e taken after the research is finished. A early limitation will only stop the hum...
^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, consequently, hence, however, if, may, nevertheless, so, therefore, for instance, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 24.0 19.5258426966 123% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.4196629213 105% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 14.8657303371 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 11.3162921348 53% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 20.0 33.0505617978 61% => OK
Preposition: 61.0 58.6224719101 104% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 12.9106741573 132% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2293.0 2235.4752809 103% => OK
No of words: 427.0 442.535393258 96% => OK
Chars per words: 5.3700234192 5.05705443957 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.54576487731 4.55969084622 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.25382509705 2.79657885939 116% => OK
Unique words: 232.0 215.323595506 108% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.543325526932 0.4932671777 110% => OK
syllable_count: 721.8 704.065955056 103% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 6.24550561798 48% => OK
Article: 13.0 4.99550561798 260% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 3.0 3.10617977528 97% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.77640449438 113% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.38483146067 91% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 20.2370786517 89% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 23.0359550562 100% => OK
Sentence length SD: 51.4923283271 60.3974514979 85% => OK
Chars per sentence: 127.388888889 118.986275619 107% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.7222222222 23.4991977007 101% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.88888888889 5.21951772744 113% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 9.0 7.80617977528 115% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 10.2758426966 88% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 5.13820224719 117% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.83258426966 62% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.100062310241 0.243740707755 41% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.031347493796 0.0831039109588 38% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0298741018048 0.0758088955206 39% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0592308987843 0.150359130593 39% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0189900098896 0.0667264976115 28% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.7 14.1392134831 111% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 39.67 48.8420337079 81% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 12.1743820225 110% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.16 12.1639044944 116% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.29 8.38706741573 111% => OK
difficult_words: 122.0 100.480337079 121% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 11.8971910112 101% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.2143820225 100% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 75.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.5 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.