Scientists and other researchers should focus their on areas that likely to benefit the greatest number of people.
The author claims that scientists must focus on the research that might provide the biggest public benefits. However, while pragmatism is prevalent these days, there are circumstances that the author may not have considered.
Generally speaking, the author’s position is plausible. With the invention of the computer, we can buy food without walking around the shopping center, with medicine, we can treat many diseases. such inventions are recognized and praised great inventions such as refrigerators and air-conditioners that made our life better.
However, the author’s assertion may not always be true. This is because the pragmatic view in scientific research might have some critical issues. First, it is hard to evaluate the amount of benefits. There are various values such as economical, aesthetic, and moral values that the researcher might seek to achieve and sometimes they conflict. For example, a plastic bag is cheap and useful to many people, but it also pollutes the environment. Since the plastic bag has economical values but also damages moral values, It is difficult to objectively judge the benefit of the plastic bag. As such the values can’t be calculated like a mathematic equation, the amount of benefits might have been difficult to evaluated.
Secondly, it is hard to predict its benefits. For example, Mendel who is the biologist examined genetics but in his life time, his research was not given much spotlight. However, after his death, he was recognized as the father of modern genetics. Likewise, Charles Darwin was criticized by religious groups who believed God made the world and humans in his life time. However, the evolutionary theory has become the main paradigm these days. As such, at the beginning of the research, it is not that easy to predict its influence on the following researches. The impact of research has uncertainty so it is hard to know the exact amount of benefits.
In conclusion, the author’s claim might seem beneficial under general conditions, regarding the counterpoints, that are difficulties of predicting and evaluating the actual advantage of research, the author’s claim cannot be fully agreed with.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-09-01 | Sagar1234567890 | 50 | view |
| 2023-08-25 | TiOluwani97 | 66 | view |
| 2023-06-20 | shubham1102 | 66 | view |
| 2023-02-01 | wikoxa7293@ekcsoft.com | 50 | view |
| 2023-01-03 | abhikhanna | 62 | view |
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
The author claims that scientists must f...
^^^
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... the author may not have considered. Generally speaking, the author’s positio...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 208, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Such
...h medicine, we can treat many diseases. such inventions are recognized and praised g...
^^^^
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...itioners that made our life better. However, the author’s assertion may not ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ht have been difficult to evaluated. Secondly, it is hard to predict its bene...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 129, Rule ID: LIFE_TIME[1]
Message: Did you mean 'lifetime'?
Suggestion: lifetime
... biologist examined genetics but in his life time, his research was not given much spotli...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 372, Rule ID: LIFE_TIME[1]
Message: Did you mean 'lifetime'?
Suggestion: lifetime
...ed God made the world and humans in his life time. However, the evolutionary theory has b...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... know the exact amount of benefits. In conclusion, the author’s claim might ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, likewise, may, regarding, second, secondly, so, while, for example, in conclusion, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 19.5258426966 108% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.4196629213 97% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 14.8657303371 67% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 11.3162921348 80% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 27.0 33.0505617978 82% => OK
Preposition: 36.0 58.6224719101 61% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 12.9106741573 46% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1849.0 2235.4752809 83% => OK
No of words: 345.0 442.535393258 78% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.35942028986 5.05705443957 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.3097767484 4.55969084622 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.90578806605 2.79657885939 104% => OK
Unique words: 192.0 215.323595506 89% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.55652173913 0.4932671777 113% => OK
syllable_count: 564.3 704.065955056 80% => 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: 9.0 4.99550561798 180% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 3.10617977528 161% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.77640449438 113% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.38483146067 160% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 20.2370786517 99% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 23.0359550562 74% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 44.2807802551 60.3974514979 73% => OK
Chars per sentence: 92.45 118.986275619 78% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.25 23.4991977007 73% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.05 5.21951772744 116% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 8.0 7.80617977528 102% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 10.2758426966 88% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 5.13820224719 136% => 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: 0.089226232652 0.243740707755 37% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0257810961685 0.0831039109588 31% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0375434126968 0.0758088955206 50% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0481398849132 0.150359130593 32% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0340613330435 0.0667264976115 51% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.4 14.1392134831 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 54.22 48.8420337079 111% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 12.1743820225 81% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.51 12.1639044944 111% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.74 8.38706741573 104% => OK
difficult_words: 93.0 100.480337079 93% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.0 11.8971910112 59% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 8.8 11.2143820225 78% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => 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.