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 assertion that scientists should focus their efforts on areas that are likely to benefit the greatest number of people holds true when looking at real-world and hypothetical examples. Projecting this statement on a multitude of unrelated fields proves that the amount of conducted research should be parallel to the amount of its beneficiaries. Whether researchers are working to eradicate a global pandemic or merely providing supply where there is demand, helping the masses always proves to help the individuals as well.
Firstly, focusing efforts that would benefit a large amount of people adheres to the principles upon which our economy is built: supply and demand. Creating products and services only remains lucrative when its producers are able to find customers willing to adopt said products. Much in the same way, scientists prove much more valuable to society when focusing their time and energy on improving conditions for a large number of people. By delving into a niche area of research, scientists may still prove valuable but do not help balance the system of supply and demand. They are merely feeding the needs of a smaller, perhaps more vociferous, group. In doing so, their work becomes less profitable making it harder for them to continue their research.
Secondly, when researchers work on thematically broad research, it can spark the interest of influential people. Celebrities and other talking heads have been known to support causes they relate to. By researching very specific topics, these people will feel alienated much more easily. By focusing on a problem that speaks to a large group, more people will become invested and more resources will be located for further research. These resources will help drive scientist’s efforts and afford them to go beyond the scope of their initial efforts. Focusing on fields that are not relatable, however, will dry up resources and prevent scientists from properly doing their job.
Opponents of the statement supported in the introduction can argue that every life should be valued equally and choosing a large amount of people over a limited group is a selfish act. This position is absolutely specious: even though improving a large number of people’s lives seems to simply shove aside the so-called ‘little-man’, sometimes helping one particular individual can make a difference for an entire group of the population. Every epidemic starts with one person and focusing research on curing ‘patient zero’ can benefit the masses by simply keeping the brewing disease at bay.
In conclusion, the assertion that researchers should focus their efforts on areas that benefit a number of people has proven accurate. After projecting the assumption on multiple areas and evaluating its benefits, it is clear that helping the masses also indirectly benefits individuals.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-10-30 | Mukul | 50 | view |
| 2019-08-22 | Nikita Goel | 66 | view |
| 2019-06-15 | SOUMEDHIK | 83 | view |
| 2019-06-02 | dsbp15 | 66 | view |
| 2019-05-26 | fa1salahm3d | 58 | view |
- The following appeared on theWeb site Science News Today.“In a recent survey of more than 5,000 adolescents, the teens who reported eating the most meals with their families were the least likely to use illegal drugs, tobacco, or alcohol. Family meals w 81
- 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 reasoni 70
- Some people claim that the goal of politics should be the pursuit of an ideal. Others argue that the goal should be finding common ground and reaching reasonable consensus.Write a response in which you discuss which view more closely aligns with your own 75
- A nation should require all of its students to study the same national curriculum until they enter college. 70
- The following is a memorandum from the business manager of a television station."Over the past year, our late-night news program has devoted increased time to national news and less time to weather and local news. During this time period, most of the comp 83
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 414, Rule ID: LARGE_NUMBER_OF[1]
Message: Specify a number, remove phrase, or simply use 'many' or 'numerous'
Suggestion: many; numerous
... and energy on improving conditions for a large number of people. By delving into a niche area of...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 246, Rule ID: LARGE_NUMBER_OF[1]
Message: Specify a number, remove phrase, or simply use 'many' or 'numerous'
Suggestion: many; numerous
...olutely specious: even though improving a large number of people's lives seems to simply sho...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'but', 'first', 'firstly', 'however', 'if', 'look', 'may', 'second', 'secondly', 'so', 'still', 'well', 'in conclusion', 'in the same way']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.23137254902 0.240241500013 96% => OK
Verbs: 0.174509803922 0.157235817809 111% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0882352941176 0.0880659088768 100% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0686274509804 0.0497285424764 138% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0352941176471 0.0444667217837 79% => OK
Prepositions: 0.103921568627 0.12292977631 85% => OK
Participles: 0.0666666666667 0.0406280797675 164% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.87857620282 2.79330140395 103% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0274509803922 0.030933414821 89% => OK
Particles: 0.00196078431373 0.0016655270985 118% => OK
Determiners: 0.0823529411765 0.0997080785238 83% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0294117647059 0.0249443105267 118% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.021568627451 0.0148568991511 145% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2886.0 2732.02544248 106% => OK
No of words: 452.0 452.878318584 100% => OK
Chars per words: 6.38495575221 6.0361032391 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.61088837703 4.58838876751 100% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.438053097345 0.366273622748 120% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.316371681416 0.280924506359 113% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.219026548673 0.200843997647 109% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.154867256637 0.132149295362 117% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.87857620282 2.79330140395 103% => OK
Unique words: 247.0 219.290929204 113% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.546460176991 0.48968727796 112% => OK
Word variations: 64.8613675441 55.4138127331 117% => OK
How many sentences: 20.0 20.6194690265 97% => OK
Sentence length: 22.6 23.380412469 97% => OK
Sentence length SD: 42.3581161054 59.4972553346 71% => OK
Chars per sentence: 144.3 141.124799967 102% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.6 23.380412469 97% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.75 0.674092028746 111% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.94800884956 101% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.21349557522 38% => OK
Readability: 54.2371681416 51.4728631049 105% => OK
Elegance: 1.44366197183 1.64882698954 88% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.486195714766 0.391690518653 124% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.104028222032 0.123202303941 84% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0714178191395 0.077325440228 92% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.508299796816 0.547984918172 93% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.139335556532 0.149214159877 93% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.173720401324 0.161403998019 108% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0837273667477 0.0892212321368 94% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.314770705086 0.385218514788 82% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0777946783345 0.0692045440612 112% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.318272347502 0.275328986314 116% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0681578551885 0.0653680567796 104% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 16.0 10.4325221239 153% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 5.30420353982 75% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.88274336283 0% => More neutral sentences wanted.
Positive topic words: 13.0 7.22455752212 180% => OK
Negative topic words: 4.0 3.66592920354 109% => OK
Neutral topic words: 0.0 2.70907079646 0% => More neutral topic words wanted.
Total topic words: 17.0 13.5995575221 125% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 70.83 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.25 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: This is not the final score. 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.