Many important discoveries or creations are accidental: it is usually while seeking the answer to one question that we come across the answer to another.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position.
The topic is a controversial statement of whether discoveries are intentional or made as a result of an accident. The author supports their claim with an assumption that while seeking the answer to one question, humans create answers to others. Indisputably, it is a logical assumption that supports many stories presented by invertors. Nevertheless, the statement does not provide the concrete evidence to be unquestionable. Thus, it is not surprising to disagree with the author.
First of all, it is universally agreed that "the need calls for invention". To illustrate, the inventor of gloves for medical operations did so in order to provide a protection for hands for his wife against external forces. He quoted "I loved my wife to the point of invention". His need to please and comfort his wife lead to the discovery of a tool that is still revered in medical industry. Similarly, many inventions that we come across today are result of need displayed by the humans. Light bulbs, electricity and many other inventions are great examples. In fact, the cooking methods we utilize today are discovered to appease the hunger brought by over population or scarcity of food. The fact that humans have the knowledge of how to cook a fish that is other wise harmful, display that when encountered with extreme need for food the experimentation becomes high till the right method is invented that is deemed to be safe enough for consumption.
Additionally, often it is easier to discover something when the end results are known. The periodic table was just a table of less than 20 elements with many blanks back in the 15th century. Yet the knowledge that these blanks can be filled speeded the discovery of many elements to complete the table and currently there are more elements than blanks in the aforementioned table. It is a method of bottom to top approach where the individual starts from the answer and raises to the question. In this case the scientists started with the properties they were looking for in the undiscovered element and raised by inculcating these properties one by one. The final result is the element they worked so hard to discover. The process might have paved way to other elements that were not part of the plan, yet the motivation for their original intentioned discovery is often not stopped till the invention is made.
Furthermore, an invention needs hard work and planning. Thomas Elva Adison discovered the light bulb despite failing a thousand times. The only thing that kept him encouraged despite the numerous failures is the awareness of what his invention is supposed to perform and the knowledge to create it. His persistence towards achieving his ambition or aim drove him to be motivated till the end. This clarity of purpose fuels many inventors. Discoveries made by accident and with no preamble will carry no persistence of the creator. The inventor could provide no pristine nature of explanations as even they lack the knowledge of proper execution of their inventions. But every inventor in existence knows their work and hence no discovery can be classified as a "mistake". Every discovery comes with some necessity and not be accident.
In conclusion, the statements made by the author have no credibility in all situations or circumstances. Unless, modifications are made or additional data supporting their claims are added, it is impossible to accepts their statement without a question. In fact, admitting these claims would be a dishonor to many inventions and scientists who dedicated their in pursuit of the knowledge that led to their discoveries
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 784, Rule ID: OTHER_WISE_OTHERWISE[1]
Message: Did you mean 'otherwise'?
Suggestion: otherwise
...knowledge of how to cook a fish that is other wise harmful, display that when encountered ...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 759, 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
...hence no discovery can be classified as a 'mistake'. Every discovery co...
^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, furthermore, hence, if, look, nevertheless, similarly, so, still, thus, while, in conclusion, in fact, as a result, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 34.0 19.5258426966 174% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.4196629213 81% => OK
Conjunction : 19.0 14.8657303371 128% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 11.3162921348 150% => OK
Pronoun: 49.0 33.0505617978 148% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 80.0 58.6224719101 136% => OK
Nominalization: 26.0 12.9106741573 201% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3046.0 2235.4752809 136% => OK
No of words: 597.0 442.535393258 135% => OK
Chars per words: 5.10217755444 5.05705443957 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.94303383012 4.55969084622 108% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.01095009056 2.79657885939 108% => OK
Unique words: 297.0 215.323595506 138% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.497487437186 0.4932671777 101% => OK
syllable_count: 966.6 704.065955056 137% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 6.24550561798 160% => OK
Article: 14.0 4.99550561798 280% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 0.0 3.10617977528 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 3.0 1.77640449438 169% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.38483146067 114% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 32.0 20.2370786517 158% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 23.0359550562 78% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 47.0517397228 60.3974514979 78% => OK
Chars per sentence: 95.1875 118.986275619 80% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.65625 23.4991977007 79% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.375 5.21951772744 84% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 19.0 10.2758426966 185% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 5.13820224719 136% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.83258426966 124% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.152516946818 0.243740707755 63% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0413031131459 0.0831039109588 50% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0490741610922 0.0758088955206 65% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0943834025842 0.150359130593 63% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0621949484697 0.0667264976115 93% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.9 14.1392134831 84% => 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: 12.3 12.1639044944 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.52 8.38706741573 102% => OK
difficult_words: 151.0 100.480337079 150% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 11.8971910112 63% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.2143820225 82% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.