From history to time, many major important discoveries and creations are forged by myraids of factors and inspirations. Some may achieved by multiple tests and trials, while some may just accidentally attained. When it comes to working on research or doing experiment, sturdy foundational studies and more attempts should be more important yet effective than just achieve the task by luck.
It is undeniably agreed that serendipities existed in some renowned yet significant discoveries, for instance, Gravitational Law observed by Newton from a falling apple, microwave noticed from a melted chocolate bar at a radar laboratory and x-ray hinted by a glow on a fluorescent screen. Those mentioned discoveries are not planned but still make a remarkable impact to human lives even till today. It is fact that unexpected results may be much more desirable than the anticipated outcomes. However, is this true that non-planned results always better than planned ones? Obviously not.
Indeed, what accidents do is just stimulating scientist to think in a new way. Newton studied basic physics law well, so when he witnessed an apple fallen from a tree, he was inspired by this scenario and then utilized his understandings in physics to derive the theory of gravity. Similarly for the inventions of microwave and x-ray, the scientists who discovered these two substances were in fact expert in optical waves and energy, therefore they were able to publish the findings of these two useful substances. Not every layman of science could be capable to give such findings as the experts do.
Nonetheless, there are more major inventions which were completed by goal-oriented efforts than by chance. For example, Edison invented electric lightbulb by many tests and trials. What if he didn't pre-defined the aimed results nor well-controlled of his experiment? Not only might electric bulbs were not produced, but might also cause serious laboratory accidents such as fire or explosion. Despite of causing harms, goal-undefined works may also make themselves prone to lack of support and financial funding. Nowadays, significant researches are often large-scale and require lots of money. If intended outcomes are not defined and promised, it is hard to convince the government or private investors to support the project and thus hinder the inventing process.
All in all, most major discoveries and creations are not entirely accidental. Although accidents may help initiating an important discovery, well-defined scope and target should be made and would often lead the project to the right path and to success.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 66, Rule ID: IN_A_X_MANNER[1]
Message: Consider replacing "in a new way" with adverb for "new"; eg, "in a hasty manner" with "hastily".
... is just stimulating scientist to think in a new way. Newton studied basic physics law well,...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 283, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Similarly,
...hysics to derive the theory of gravity. Similarly for the inventions of microwave and x-r...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 193, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: didn't
...lb by many tests and trials. What if he didnt pre-defined the aimed results nor well-...
^^^^^
Line 9, column 107, Rule ID: ADVISE_VBG[5]
Message: The verb 'help' is used with infinitive: 'to initiate' or 'initiate'.
Suggestion: to initiate; initiate
...accidental. Although accidents may help initiating an important discovery, well-defined sc...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, however, if, may, nonetheless, similarly, so, still, then, therefore, thus, well, while, for example, for instance, in fact, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.5258426966 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.4196629213 89% => OK
Conjunction : 25.0 14.8657303371 168% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 11.3162921348 62% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 19.0 33.0505617978 57% => OK
Preposition: 45.0 58.6224719101 77% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 12.9106741573 39% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2206.0 2235.4752809 99% => OK
No of words: 411.0 442.535393258 93% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.36739659367 5.05705443957 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.50256981431 4.55969084622 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.95985176451 2.79657885939 106% => OK
Unique words: 252.0 215.323595506 117% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.613138686131 0.4932671777 124% => OK
syllable_count: 691.2 704.065955056 98% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 6.24550561798 80% => OK
Article: 1.0 4.99550561798 20% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 3.10617977528 129% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.38483146067 46% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 20.2370786517 99% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 23.0359550562 87% => OK
Sentence length SD: 62.2898644314 60.3974514979 103% => OK
Chars per sentence: 110.3 118.986275619 93% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.55 23.4991977007 87% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.15 5.21951772744 137% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 7.80617977528 51% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 15.0 10.2758426966 146% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 5.13820224719 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.0812786864856 0.243740707755 33% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0234314865186 0.0831039109588 28% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0390702000388 0.0758088955206 52% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0504972086919 0.150359130593 34% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.052853216063 0.0667264976115 79% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.1 14.1392134831 100% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 42.72 48.8420337079 87% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.1743820225 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.87 12.1639044944 114% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.74 8.38706741573 116% => OK
difficult_words: 133.0 100.480337079 132% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.5 11.8971910112 130% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.2143820225 89% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.7820224719 85% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 16.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.