Government funding for purely scientific endeavors, such as space exploration, should be reduced in order to direct more funding toward humanitarian science projects.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and supporting your position, be sure to consider specific instances for which this statement may or may not be true.
Aliens and UFOs used to be considered purely science fiction, but with the increasing knowledge that scientific community has been accumulating, the existence of other living creatures in the universe seem to be a plausible theory. I disagree that government funding for purely scientific endeavors should be reduced for more funding toward humanitarian science projects to the extent that purely scientific endeavors should still be maintained as they are an important part in the developing scientific society and may be a crucial source for alternative resources with the current state of global warming. However, although purely scientific endeavors such as space exploration are still important, a small reduction to provide more funding towards humanitarian science projects may allow more immediate benefits for the society.
The development of a society is not only characterized by the level of civilization but also by scientific explorations. The knowledge through scientific endeavors has brought our society forward by strengthening our knowledge of the universe. Humans used to believe that the Earth is flat, and that the Sun and the Moon rotate around the Earth. Through the advance of our knowledge in science and outer space, we learned that the Earth is indeed round and revolves around the Sun. Such knowledge are crucial for understanding many of the natural phenomenons that we experience and allows us to better prepare for and combat against natural disasters. Therefore, the implications of understanding the universe makes scientific exploration a crucial part of the 21st century development.
Moreover, the increasing concerns for global warming motivates scientists to seek resources or living environments elsewhere in the vast universe. The availability of natural resources on earth is limited, while the population of humans and other living species proliferates. The need to unearth alternative resources is eminent for human being’s survival in the future. Therefore, the claim to reduce funding for such projects lacks serious consideration of long-term consequences.
On the other hand, humanitarian projects have relatively larger potential to provide more immediate results that could benefit the society. Funding for causes such as cancer treatments and vaccinations have aided millions of people around the world. However, government reduction in the funding of alternative science projects for such humanitarian projects may provide beneficial only on a small scale. Too large of a reduction of funding from scientific endeavors would be deleterous. Since humanitarian projects provide more visible outcomes, it is more likely that they would obtain funding from NGOs and individuals. Therefore it is the government’s responsibility to balance the usage of tax payer’s money between funding purely scientific endeavors and humanitarian science projects.
In conclusion, funding for purely scientific endeavors is a long-term investment, while funding toward humanitarian science projects marks a rather short-term investment. Both projects are of vital importance to the development of our society, and thus I believe that the government should not cut funding from one project to fund the other, but rather aim to strike a balance between the two.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022-10-26 | Jayesh_sawant | 58 | view |
| 2021-02-20 | skoirala | 83 | view |
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 499, Rule ID: MASS_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Possible agreement error - use third-person verb forms for singular and mass nouns: 'is'.
Suggestion: is
...revolves around the Sun. Such knowledge are crucial for understanding many of the n...
^^^
Line 7, column 624, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Therefore,
...tain funding from NGOs and individuals. Therefore it is the government's responsibil...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, however, if, may, moreover, so, still, then, therefore, thus, while, in conclusion, such as, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.5258426966 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.4196629213 81% => OK
Conjunction : 17.0 14.8657303371 114% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 11.3162921348 88% => OK
Pronoun: 23.0 33.0505617978 70% => OK
Preposition: 63.0 58.6224719101 107% => OK
Nominalization: 31.0 12.9106741573 240% => Less nominalization wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2829.0 2235.4752809 127% => OK
No of words: 494.0 442.535393258 112% => OK
Chars per words: 5.72672064777 5.05705443957 113% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.71445763274 4.55969084622 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.14968568643 2.79657885939 113% => OK
Unique words: 221.0 215.323595506 103% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.447368421053 0.4932671777 91% => OK
syllable_count: 882.0 704.065955056 125% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.59117977528 113% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 6.24550561798 48% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.740449438202 0% => OK
Article: 9.0 4.99550561798 180% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 3.10617977528 129% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.77640449438 225% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 4.38483146067 91% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 20.2370786517 104% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 23.0359550562 100% => OK
Sentence length SD: 63.3605741631 60.3974514979 105% => OK
Chars per sentence: 134.714285714 118.986275619 113% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.5238095238 23.4991977007 100% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.7619047619 5.21951772744 110% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 10.2758426966 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 5.13820224719 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.83258426966 166% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.33750045004 0.243740707755 138% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.101355004112 0.0831039109588 122% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.088921991167 0.0758088955206 117% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.194779911022 0.150359130593 130% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.112462217418 0.0667264976115 169% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.3 14.1392134831 122% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 31.21 48.8420337079 64% => It means the essay is relatively harder to read.
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.6 12.1743820225 120% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.25 12.1639044944 134% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.64 8.38706741573 103% => OK
difficult_words: 121.0 100.480337079 120% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 19.0 11.8971910112 160% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.2143820225 100% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => The average readability is low. Need to improve the language.
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.