Governments should place few, if any, restrictions on scientific research and development.
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.
Recently, a prevalent statement we often see is that governments are essential to leave few restrictions on scientists. This is because restrictions may make scientists hardly focus on their own researching interest or miss some promise topics. Opponents, however, argue that taking proper restrictions could make research more formal. From a personal view, both are reasonable. The details would be discussed below.
To begin with, government should give freedom to scientific research in scientists' daily work. Specifically, there is no doubt that most of the scientists have a better comprehension about their own researching topic. In this case, they know which project is promising. At the same time, they could do research by following their own heart which could bring them happiness. For instance, my instructor is energetic in researching because his ardor in the topic which he is focusing on. In the contrary, assume that every scientist is annoyed by working on their own job daily. It would be hard to promise a substantial outgrowth from their work.
At the same time, governments should place restrictions on some projects which would disobey law or make public nervous. Depending on a study from the University of Tokyo, at 89-percent students think human clone experiment is essential to be banned. Such technology may bring the amount of benefits. Nonetheless, the abuse of it also could make society less stable. In this condition, it is crucial to instruct these researches for avoiding scientists invest it for money but without concerning the harmful influence.
Admittedly, a minority of individuals tend to believe that governments should focus on the topic which would make military more powerful or promise better living quality. Nevertheless, if we could analyze this issue from a different perspective, we could find these people have oversimplified the fact that the significant outcome often comes from accidents. No one could tell clearly which technology could be the next one to change the world. Therefore, only developing all aspects of technology could provide a bright future.
Overall, it is best for governments to place no restriction on normal research, but ban the development of technology which could make public nervous. Considering different conditions, two statements are both reasonable.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-09-16 | Navis | 16 | view |
| 2019-09-13 | 1172910232 | 50 | view |
| 2019-09-13 | 1172910232 | 16 | view |
| 2019-01-08 | evanlu | 66 | view |
| 2015-09-08 | negin papen | 40 | view |
- 2.Fifteen years ago, Omega University implemented a new procedure that encouraged students to evaluate the teaching effectiveness of all their professors. Since that time, Omega professors have begun to assign higher grades in their classes, and overall s 61
- Nature's Way, a chain of stores selling health food and other health-related products, is opening its next franchise in the town of Plainsville. The store should prove to be very successful: Nature's Way franchises tend to be most profitable in areas wher 73
- Some people believe that college students should consider only their own talents and interests when choosing a field of study. Others believe that college students should base their choice of a field of study on the availability of jobs in that field. Wr 50
- Students should always question what they are taught instead of accepting it passively. Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing 50
- The following appeared as part of an article in a Dillton newspaper. "In an effort to bring new jobs to Dillton and stimulate the city's flagging economy, Dillton's city council voted last year to lower the city's corporate tax rate by 45
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 257, Rule ID: PROGRESSIVE_VERBS[1]
Message: This verb is normally not used in the progressive form. Try a simple form instead.
.... In this case, they know which project is promising. At the same time, they could do resear...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, however, if, may, nevertheless, nonetheless, so, therefore, for instance, no doubt, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 19.5258426966 87% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 19.0 12.4196629213 153% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 14.8657303371 34% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 13.0 11.3162921348 115% => OK
Pronoun: 31.0 33.0505617978 94% => OK
Preposition: 46.0 58.6224719101 78% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 12.9106741573 62% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1991.0 2235.4752809 89% => OK
No of words: 365.0 442.535393258 82% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.45479452055 5.05705443957 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.37092360658 4.55969084622 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.99988865747 2.79657885939 107% => OK
Unique words: 202.0 215.323595506 94% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.553424657534 0.4932671777 112% => OK
syllable_count: 594.9 704.065955056 84% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 6.24550561798 128% => OK
Article: 4.0 4.99550561798 80% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 3.10617977528 32% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 9.0 4.38483146067 205% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 20.2370786517 114% => OK
Sentence length: 15.0 23.0359550562 65% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 39.9202891974 60.3974514979 66% => OK
Chars per sentence: 86.5652173913 118.986275619 73% => OK
Words per sentence: 15.8695652174 23.4991977007 68% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.69565217391 5.21951772744 90% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 10.2758426966 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 5.13820224719 195% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.83258426966 62% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.165536182253 0.243740707755 68% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0496449620511 0.0831039109588 60% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0515013238103 0.0758088955206 68% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.104724293245 0.150359130593 70% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0277579387439 0.0667264976115 42% => 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: 12.2 14.1392134831 86% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 56.25 48.8420337079 115% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.92365168539 39% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 12.1743820225 75% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.03 12.1639044944 115% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.49 8.38706741573 101% => OK
difficult_words: 95.0 100.480337079 95% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 5.5 11.8971910112 46% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 8.0 11.2143820225 71% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.7820224719 68% => The average readability is low. Need to imporve the language.
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.