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.
A range of examples could be provided to suppot the argument that most of the discoveries are accidental in nature. One of the recent that lead to advancment of graphene, for which the two professors recieved the prestrigious noble prize in physics. It happened by accident that a tape got stuck on graphite they were studing, and when they pulled it, they observed a thin layer of graphite got stuck to the tape. They dilluted the tape and found the graphite to have single atomic layer thickness. The process to obtain a single atomic layer thickness graphite was tedious, required sopisticated instruments and was costly prior to this incident. This invention kicked off the usage of graphene for wide range of applications, from heat transfer enhancement, to armoured suits. There are several such examples, but the key here is, the findings simply did not airdropped, rather the scientists were working to understand some physical phenomenon, or to develop some system. Given the interdependece of physical phenomenons in nature, it is no suprise to land on a different discovery while working for somethig else.
However, stating these discoveries as mere accident undermines the effort by the scientific community at large. These so called accidents also did not happen at first, it took at while and after commiting several mistakes and learning from them lead to these discoversies. Besides, accidents leads to phenomenon, but the discovery needs effort to understand them and develop on them. This can be illustrated from the previous example, yes sticking of tape on graphite was accident, however it was interest of the proffesors to analyze the material sticking to the tape that made them to dillute the tape and do scientific anlysis of the material that lead to the discovery.
While a large number of incidents can be recalled were the discoveries were made while searching for answer to another phenomenon, a large number of problems solved are result of approach to solve the specific problem.
The dicoveries made are result of the quest for the knowldge and calling them simply undermines the effort. Besides, the accidents do not happen at first, to reach to these accidents takes hundreds of other mistakes and learning from them, and these accidents does not directly results in discovery.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 862, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[1]
Message: The verb 'did' requires the base form of the verb: 'airdrop'
Suggestion: airdrop
...ey here is, the findings simply did not airdropped, rather the scientists were working to ...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 7, Rule ID: LARGE_NUMBER_OF[1]
Message: Specify a number, remove phrase, or simply use 'many' or 'numerous'
Suggestion: many; numerous
... that lead to the discovery. While a large number of incidents can be recalled were the disc...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 132, Rule ID: LARGE_NUMBER_OF[1]
Message: Specify a number, remove phrase, or simply use 'many' or 'numerous'
Suggestion: many; numerous
...ching for answer to another phenomenon, a large number of problems solved are result of approach ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 13, column 279, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[3]
Message: The verb 'does' requires base form of the verb: 'result'
Suggestion: result
..., and these accidents does not directly results in discovery.
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, besides, but, first, however, if, so, while
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 19.5258426966 87% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 12.4196629213 24% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 14.8657303371 87% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 11.3162921348 62% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 28.0 33.0505617978 85% => OK
Preposition: 57.0 58.6224719101 97% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 12.9106741573 31% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1951.0 2235.4752809 87% => OK
No of words: 378.0 442.535393258 85% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.16137566138 5.05705443957 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.40933352052 4.55969084622 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.790814708 2.79657885939 100% => OK
Unique words: 191.0 215.323595506 89% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.505291005291 0.4932671777 102% => OK
syllable_count: 616.5 704.065955056 88% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 6.24550561798 128% => OK
Article: 6.0 4.99550561798 120% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 3.10617977528 32% => OK
Conjunction: 5.0 1.77640449438 281% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 4.38483146067 68% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 20.2370786517 74% => 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: 51.0469935996 60.3974514979 85% => OK
Chars per sentence: 130.066666667 118.986275619 109% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.2 23.4991977007 107% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.26666666667 5.21951772744 63% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 7.80617977528 51% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 10.2758426966 19% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 5.13820224719 195% => 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: 0.0638322603955 0.243740707755 26% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0226628701421 0.0831039109588 27% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0308230292621 0.0758088955206 41% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0446451822037 0.150359130593 30% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0403952131633 0.0667264976115 61% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.5 14.1392134831 110% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 46.1 48.8420337079 94% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.0 12.1743820225 107% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.94 12.1639044944 106% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.97 8.38706741573 107% => OK
difficult_words: 98.0 100.480337079 98% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 11.8971910112 88% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.2143820225 107% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.7820224719 110% => 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.
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.