131. 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.
Many argue that the range of researching area should not be limited to only practical and immediate area since no one can exactly expect the outcome of researches with any certainty. I partially agree with this opinion because I know many past accomplishments achieved by studying unlimited areas. However, in the following article, I argue that practically researchers cannot only broaden their researching area but also it is not always desirable.
Admittedly, the given claim seems sound and convincing in that many prominent researches have done by this way. By un-limiting its boundary of studying from practical and immediate area, John Maynard Keynes could come up with new concept of economics called Macro-economics. In 1930, the Great Depression started to sweep the world economy. While many economists tried to figure out the reason and solution of the economic disaster, they could not explain this anomaly, let alone getting a solution. The economy could not easily recovered, so people were mired in severe poverty and unemployment. In this time Keynes focused not on the immediate situation but on the big structure of economy by stepping back from the particular situation. He rebuilt the method and perspective of economic analysis. Based on his theory, government could introduce new way of encouraging economy named New-deal policy and still his theory acts as one major pillar of economic analysis. As this compelling example shows, in many cases, way out of an immediate, practical application can make an eminent accomplishment.
However, in rapidly changing society, the way that has drawn success in the past might not necessarily guarantee today’s success. Also, just from some cases of success, to argue to follow an impractical goal is absurd. First, the distinguishing discrepancy from the past is the depth of today’s studying. From technology advancement and accumulation of researches, the depth of study skyrockets day by day. In this regard, researchers cannot help limiting their studying area due to the limitation of the time and energy. If researchers should confine their field of study and there exist, in rough division, both practical, immediate and impractical and time-consuming area, then does the researcher choose which area? I believe the choice is inevitable and the answer is obvious. Second, the proposition that research should work for well-being of people indicates the appropriateness of limiting researching area to practical region. Usually, researches are conducted by public institution or universities which heavily rely on government tax. So, the researchers owe to public and the only way to pay off the debt is to contribute wellness of people’s life. The way is obviously to produce practical researches improving people’ life. Even though the researches deviated from practical areas would produce benefits to people like Keynes, the changed circumstance makes it more difficult. Considering that originally the possibility for the deviated areas to contribute to society is lower than the practical area, studying for this aggravated expectation of contribution is absurd.
In conclusion, I admit the past achievement from the way claimed in the given sentence, but from both the increasing difficulty and duty for improvement of living, I believe the statement lose the credibility.
| 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 |
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
Many argue that the range of researching...
^^
Line 4, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...t also it is not always desirable. Admittedly, the given claim seems sound ...
^^
Line 4, column 533, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[3]
Message: The verb 'could' requires base form of the verb: 'recover'
Suggestion: recover
...solution. The economy could not easily recovered, so people were mired in severe poverty...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...an make an eminent accomplishment. However, in rapidly changing society, th...
^^
Line 8, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...xpectation of contribution is absurd. In conclusion, I admit the past achiev...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, may, second, so, still, then, well, while, as to, in conclusion, in many cases
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 19.5258426966 67% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.4196629213 105% => OK
Conjunction : 19.0 14.8657303371 128% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 11.3162921348 71% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 29.0 33.0505617978 88% => OK
Preposition: 78.0 58.6224719101 133% => OK
Nominalization: 21.0 12.9106741573 163% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2866.0 2235.4752809 128% => OK
No of words: 521.0 442.535393258 118% => OK
Chars per words: 5.5009596929 5.05705443957 109% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.77759609229 4.55969084622 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.09898136739 2.79657885939 111% => OK
Unique words: 285.0 215.323595506 132% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.547024952015 0.4932671777 111% => OK
syllable_count: 903.6 704.065955056 128% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 6.24550561798 112% => OK
Article: 10.0 4.99550561798 200% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 4.0 3.10617977528 129% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 12.0 4.38483146067 274% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 26.0 20.2370786517 128% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 23.0359550562 87% => OK
Sentence length SD: 41.8249557451 60.3974514979 69% => OK
Chars per sentence: 110.230769231 118.986275619 93% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.0384615385 23.4991977007 85% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.19230769231 5.21951772744 80% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 7.80617977528 64% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 10.2758426966 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 5.13820224719 136% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 9.0 4.83258426966 186% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.296095502418 0.243740707755 121% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0771166326149 0.0831039109588 93% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0878578769705 0.0758088955206 116% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.170555986568 0.150359130593 113% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.118561126111 0.0667264976115 178% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.5 14.1392134831 103% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 42.72 48.8420337079 87% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.1743820225 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.62 12.1639044944 120% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.42 8.38706741573 112% => OK
difficult_words: 158.0 100.480337079 157% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 11.8971910112 92% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.2143820225 89% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.7820224719 127% => 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: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.