Scientists and other researchers should focus their research on areas that are likely to benefit the greatest number of people.
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 author’s recommendation seem high controversial: it seems morally unacceptable that the research should focused only on field benefiting the majority to the detriment of minorities. In what follows, I will support this intuition by taking into account both its negative and positive ramifications. As it will turn out, the negative consequences outline the positive ones.
At first glance, a reason for implementing the author’s recommendation is that it is more important to solve a problem that hits a greater number of people. Is it better to save 100 people or just 1? Of course, most of us are inclined to think that the first option is preferable. Economic research that tries to find solutions to the present discrepancy between the low number of wealthy and the great number of poor is surely welcome. Medical researches that are finding out a cure for cancers should be supported, since cancers are one of the main mortal diseases affecting a great number of people.
However, it is not always the case that a great number of people suffer from a relevant disease. When it comes to problems impacting society, it is crucial to also consider their seriousness. Suppose that every year there are sixty million people suffering from flu. Moreover, suppose that there are just 1 million of children suffering from a genetic mortal malady. Who should be prioritised? Our intuition is that, of course, researchers should focus on identifying a solution for those children instead of resolving the flu problem. If they did not do so, the consequence would be deleterious and much more grievous: a plethora of children would be at risk of dying.
Some people might object by advancing certain hard cases. For example, what if both the majority and minorities suffer from mortal diseases that are different from each other? Should the majority be prioritized over minorities in researching a solution? In this case, it would be worth following a proportional rule, according to which the available funds for supporting research should be divided proportionally. If the 2 percent of people suffer from a certain mortal disease the 2 percent (or maybe less) of the total financial support should be used to find a cure for it. In this way, it is not the case that a group is benefited to the detriment of another one.
To sum up, the author’s recommendation involves the negative consequence that, if it was implemented, there would be minorities facing serious problems – such as death or poverty. A better rule that should be followed involves taking into account the seriousness of the problem. If all the problem are equally serious, proportionality should be the criteria to be adopted.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 290, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ffering from flu. Moreover, suppose that there are just 1 million of children suf...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, however, if, may, moreover, so, for example, of course, such as, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 30.0 19.5258426966 154% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 12.4196629213 129% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 14.8657303371 47% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 17.0 11.3162921348 150% => OK
Pronoun: 35.0 33.0505617978 106% => OK
Preposition: 55.0 58.6224719101 94% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 12.9106741573 85% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2276.0 2235.4752809 102% => OK
No of words: 447.0 442.535393258 101% => OK
Chars per words: 5.09172259508 5.05705443957 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.59808378696 4.55969084622 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.99582728256 2.79657885939 107% => OK
Unique words: 224.0 215.323595506 104% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.501118568233 0.4932671777 102% => OK
syllable_count: 707.4 704.065955056 100% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 6.24550561798 96% => OK
Article: 6.0 4.99550561798 120% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 3.10617977528 225% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 9.0 4.38483146067 205% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 20.2370786517 119% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 23.0359550562 78% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 44.1335567718 60.3974514979 73% => OK
Chars per sentence: 94.8333333333 118.986275619 80% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.625 23.4991977007 79% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.625 5.21951772744 69% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 10.2758426966 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 5.13820224719 195% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.83258426966 83% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.137406335661 0.243740707755 56% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0394043749722 0.0831039109588 47% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.041707423825 0.0758088955206 55% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0788651365857 0.150359130593 52% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0309503800145 0.0667264976115 46% => 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: 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: 12.24 12.1639044944 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.96 8.38706741573 95% => OK
difficult_words: 97.0 100.480337079 97% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 11.8971910112 88% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.2143820225 82% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => 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.