Claim: Researchers should not limit their investigations to only those areas in which they expect to discover something that has an immediate, practical application.
Reason: It is impossible to predict the outcome of a line of research with any certainty.
Most of researchers in any field of study are trying to pursue their goal to expand the limit of their study. Their goal or their purpose of research is not on the superficial, it is impact of conventional knowledge with innovational thoughts. However, it is hardly to implement innovational protocol within a limits of investigation; indeed if there is boundary, it couldn’t have results that researchers want to have. Therefore, to understand hypothesis or to develop theory, there should not be a limit that causes research.
The process and introduction are very important to the research, and researchers believe that every investigation that they will have would be very helpful to improve process or introduction. If there is any financial aid, it couldn’t easily start a new form of research because when financial aid stops, research could stop in the middle of nowhere. Other circumstances that if there is any investigation of protocol, it will easily to go forward to the next level of their research.
As statement talked about research certainty, nobody can’t ascertain about the future conclusion of research. Whether it is abortive or marvelous conclusion, research will have at least small amount of clue that gives the tenor of research. Recently, archaeologist discovered one of the oldest human being on the earth. They found a fossil that formed almost similar outfit. However, they didn’t know that they would find this type of fossil.
In conclusion, discovery of any other fields is not easy foundation to prove. On the other hand, there can be refute that some of the research can have certainty of having an exact conclusion and it doesn’t need their investigation. However, every clues are come from previous research and every expectation would come from aspects of their view, so they need some time to expect; it would be hard if there is no investigation. Therefore, researchers should have investigation until they expect to discover their goals.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-11-06 | z.salahshoor | 66 | view |
| 2019-10-17 | luciano.pisa | 66 | view |
| 2019-08-18 | p30kh40 | 66 | view |
| 2019-08-17 | p30kh40 | 75 | view |
| 2019-07-28 | sanket007 | 66 | view |
- Claim: Major policy decisions should always be left to politicians and other government experts.Reason: politicians and other government experts are more informed and thus have better judgment and perspective than do members of the general public. 66
- Claim: Researchers should not limit their investigations to only those areas in which they expect to discover something that has an immediate, practical application.Reason: It is impossible to predict the outcome of a line of research with any certainty. 50
- Claim: Researchers should not limit their investigations to only those areas in which they expect to discover something that has an immediate, practical application.Reason: It is impossible to predict the outcome of a line of research with any certainty. 50
- There is little justification for society to make extraordinary efforts—especially at a great cost in money and jobs—to save endangered animal or plant species.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the st 66
- The main benefit of the study of history is to dispel the illusion that people living now are significantly different from people who lived in earlier times. 50
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 1, Rule ID: MOST_SOME_OF_NNS[1]
Message: After 'Most of', you should use 'the' ('Most of the researchers') or simply say ''Most researchers''.
Suggestion: Most of the researchers; Most researchers
Most of researchers in any field of study are trying to pur...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 309, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[1]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'a limit' or simply 'limits'?
Suggestion: a limit; limits
... implement innovational protocol within a limits of investigation; indeed if there is bo...
^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 123, Rule ID: SOME_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'some'.
Suggestion: some
...he other hand, there can be refute that some of the research can have certainty of having a...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
however, if, so, therefore, at least, in conclusion, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 19.5258426966 87% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.4196629213 121% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 14.8657303371 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 10.0 11.3162921348 88% => OK
Pronoun: 32.0 33.0505617978 97% => OK
Preposition: 46.0 58.6224719101 78% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 12.9106741573 93% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1695.0 2235.4752809 76% => OK
No of words: 322.0 442.535393258 73% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.26397515528 5.05705443957 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.23607819155 4.55969084622 93% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.05549819347 2.79657885939 109% => OK
Unique words: 167.0 215.323595506 78% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.518633540373 0.4932671777 105% => OK
syllable_count: 517.5 704.065955056 74% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 6.24550561798 144% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.740449438202 0% => OK
Article: 1.0 4.99550561798 20% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.38483146067 68% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 20.2370786517 79% => 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: 20.0 23.0359550562 87% => OK
Sentence length SD: 42.6474922328 60.3974514979 71% => OK
Chars per sentence: 105.9375 118.986275619 89% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.125 23.4991977007 86% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.375 5.21951772744 84% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 7.80617977528 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 10.2758426966 68% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 5.13820224719 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.83258426966 124% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.305603492183 0.243740707755 125% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.112186652167 0.0831039109588 135% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0647829825803 0.0758088955206 85% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.197189523162 0.150359130593 131% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0235440234926 0.0667264976115 35% => 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: 13.4 14.1392134831 95% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 48.8420337079 105% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.1743820225 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.23 12.1639044944 109% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.11 8.38706741573 97% => OK
difficult_words: 71.0 100.480337079 71% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 11.8971910112 97% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.2143820225 89% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => 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.
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.