The statement argues that 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. While many discoveries and inventions were a product of serendipity, We cannot state that it is more common to find other answers while searching for a specific answer.
In fact, the history has witnessed a decent number of stories about accidental discoveries or creations. At the same time, these discoveries were a result of continuous research and devotion of the scientists who hit new discoveries while trying to obtain different results. For instance, Dr. Fleming discovered Penicillin by accident when he was working on other research and left on vacation, he came back to find a surprising type of fungus on a culture he left in his lab which killed all bacteria, after a continuous research he came up with a crucial discovery in the medical field. Another example is the discovery of radioactivity by Henry Becquerel, while he was investigating the X-ray, which was discovered earlier by serendipity, he accidentally discovered a new phenomenon, radioactivity, and received a Nobel prize as a recognition of his intervention.
Thus, we cannot ignore that these accidental results were an outcome of trial and error procedures which was more common in traditional science. Nowadays, scientific research tends to use measurement approach, where is a great percentage of the result can be predicted. Researchers start by reviewing sufficient amount of literature, to learn from past experiences and develop a comprehensive understanding of the matter of subject. Subsequently, they create their research criteria and state their goals and hypothesis. So, literature review and well-stated questions leave a very little room for accidental discoveries, which reduce the waste of the available funding for the scientific research.
Also, while the number of accidental discoveries is outnumbered by the predicted ones, short and unpredictable solution is more plausible and popular. In addition, these accidental discoveries were a result of the scientist aptitude to grasp the idea and work hard to prove it, only the person whose mind is prepared to see things will actually notice them. An apple falling from a tree would not make Newton suddenly comes up with his theory of gravity, without associating it with mathematics and starting his studies that would culminate in the approach of the Law of Universal Gravitation. the accident may spark the research curiosity, but only well-defined research would lead to significant results.
In conclusion, scientific research should be well-planned and its results should be predictable to the most extent. Even accidental discoveries came as a result of an exceptional work.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 690, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ecquerel, while he was investigating the X-ray, which was discovered earlier by s...
^^
Line 5, column 349, Rule ID: PAST_EXPERIENCE_MEMORY[1]
Message: Use simply 'experiences'.
Suggestion: experiences
...ent amount of literature, to learn from past experiences and develop a comprehensive understandi...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 595, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: The
...ch of the Law of Universal Gravitation. the accident may spark the research curiosi...
^^^
Line 9, column 186, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ame as a result of an exceptional work.
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, if, may, so, thus, well, while, for instance, in addition, in conclusion, in fact, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.5258426966 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.4196629213 81% => OK
Conjunction : 17.0 14.8657303371 114% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 11.3162921348 115% => OK
Pronoun: 30.0 33.0505617978 91% => OK
Preposition: 59.0 58.6224719101 101% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 12.9106741573 93% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2389.0 2235.4752809 107% => OK
No of words: 440.0 442.535393258 99% => OK
Chars per words: 5.42954545455 5.05705443957 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.57997565096 4.55969084622 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.16931879299 2.79657885939 113% => OK
Unique words: 245.0 215.323595506 114% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.556818181818 0.4932671777 113% => OK
syllable_count: 751.5 704.065955056 107% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 6.24550561798 112% => OK
Article: 4.0 4.99550561798 80% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 3.10617977528 129% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.77640449438 113% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.38483146067 160% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 20.2370786517 84% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 25.0 23.0359550562 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 63.4713787227 60.3974514979 105% => OK
Chars per sentence: 140.529411765 118.986275619 118% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.8823529412 23.4991977007 110% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.76470588235 5.21951772744 130% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 7.80617977528 51% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 10.2758426966 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 5.13820224719 97% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.83258426966 41% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.25248399 0.243740707755 104% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.092928536143 0.0831039109588 112% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.213154651651 0.0758088955206 281% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.178192914616 0.150359130593 119% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.274886534009 0.0667264976115 412% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.1 14.1392134831 121% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 37.64 48.8420337079 77% => OK
smog_index: 13.0 7.92365168539 164% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 12.1743820225 117% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.51 12.1639044944 119% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.29 8.38706741573 111% => OK
difficult_words: 123.0 100.480337079 122% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 11.8971910112 122% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.2143820225 107% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.7820224719 127% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 79.17 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.75 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.