May 9, 2024
08/05 The aim of science: another opinion essay :)
Science has been an important part for the development of every society. The question of whether or not the most important aim of science should be to help people's lives has been the subject of public discussion. I tend to agree that science should work to make people's life easier.
To begin, science can be more founded when it shows its application in real life. Investors usually put their money on this type of investigative work when it solves real life problems, such as the COVID-19. When the world were struggling with this contagious disease, vaccinations were the ideal solution to that epidemic. Many pharmaceutical corporations developed their vaccine and investigations because of the money they received by governments and private investors.
In addition, many science research that are not applicable in real life end up at university's libraries without being known. When scientists are unable to explain the real application of their research, they reduce the number of people who are interested in it. That makes their knowledge and findings obsolete and only relevant for a small group of scientists. For instance, many scientist papers that are only recognized in the academic have a limited scope and impact in a society because of their lack of real life implementations.
In conclusion, I believe that the aim of science should be to improve people's life because in that way they are more financially founded and also their knowledge would not destine to remained at universities and for the only use of students
08/05 The aim of science: another opinion essay :)
Science has been an important part ofor the development of every society.
The question of whether or not the most important aim of science should be to help people's lives has been the subject of public discussion.
I tend to agree that science should work to make people's life easier.
To begin, science can be more founded when it shows its application in real life.
When the world wereas struggling with this contagious disease, vaccinations were the ideal solution to that epie pandemic.
technically, 'epidemic' is for an outbreak in a specific area
Many pharmaceutical corporations developed their vaccine and investigations because of the money they received byfrom governments and private investors.
In addition, manya lot of scientifice research that areis not applicable in real life ends up at university's libraries without becoming known.
When scientists are unable to explain the real application of their research, they reduce the number ofless people who are interested in it.
technically "fewer people" is correct, but "less" also gets used for countable objects
That makes their knowledge and findings obsolete and only relevant for a small group of scientists.
For instance, many scientistfic papers that are only recognized in the academica have a limited scope and impact in aon society because of their lack of real life implementations.
In conclusion, I believe that the aim of science should be to improve people's lifeves because in that way they are more financially foundedjustifiable and also their knowledge would not destine to remaremain confined ato universities and for the only use ofonly to be used by students.
08/05 The aim of science: another opinion essay :)
Science has been an important part ofor the development of every society.
The question of whether or not the most important aim of science should be to help people's lives has been the subject of public discussion.
I tend to agree that science should work to make people's lifeves easier.
To begin, science can breceive more foundeding when it shows itsreal life application in real life.
Investors usually put their money inton this type of investigative work when it solves real life problems, such as the COVID-19.
"Investors usually invest their money in (something)" is a more formal way of expressing "put their money into (something)"
When the world wereas struggling with this contagious disease, vaccinations were the ideal solution to thate epidemic.
Many pharmaceutical corporations developed their vaccine and investigationsresearch because of the money they received byfrom governments and private investors.
In addition, manya lot of science research that areis not applicable into real life ends up at university'sies' libraries without being known.
When scientists are unable to explain the real-world application of their research, ithey reduces the number of people who are interested in it.
That makes their knowledge and findings obsolete and only relevant forto a small group of scientists.
I'm not sure obsolete is the correct word here. Obsolete, when referring to knowledge and research, could imply that the findings are old or useless, and probably based on such old science, that no one who wants to be correct and advanced in scientific knowledge would ever use it. The use of the word obsolete coupled with the next phrase of "only relevant to a small group of scientists" then is a little strange, because if the research is actually out-of-date or useless, why would anyone what to use it - even a small group of scientists? Unfortunately, I don't have a good replacement phrase though. It's not a bad usage, just slightly dichotomous.
For instance, many scientistfic papers that are only recognized in the academic sphere have a limited scope and impact in aon society because of their lack of real -life implementations.
In conclusion, I believe that the aim of science should be to improve people's lifeves because in that way they are more financially foit is more funded and also their knowledge would not be destined to remained at in universities and only for the only use of students
Feedback
While you had some interesting ideas, I'm not sure if the actual logical structure of the essay as a test answer is quite there. If the premise is "I believe that the aim of science should be to improve people's lives" then I am not quite convinced that addressing it from the angle of creating more real world applications to receive more financial funding is quite the right technique. It seems like a roundabout argument, and like you're answering the question "Do you believe science should focus on more theoretical applications or real world applications?" I think you could make a stronger direct argument that would address the use of science to specifically impact people's lives, with the financial aspect being a secondary factor. For example, the use of COVID-19 is a good example, but perhaps writing it as how developing a vaccine is a good use of science that improves people's lives, versus using research to develop a faster video game console. Or giving concrete examples of the beneficial effect of the vaccine (saves lives, reduces suffering, prevents death, etc) Additionally, the COVID-19 vaccine was very applicable to a number of fields, and thus has continued to receive a lot of funding. The research has helped many people in many other fields advance the science of disease vaccines, which is continuously helping to advance medical science and thus extend life-saving benefits to sufferers of other diseases.
|
08/05 The aim of science: another opinion essay :) This sentence has been marked as perfect! This sentence has been marked as perfect! |
|
Science has been an important part for the development of every society. Science has been an important part of Science has been an important part of |
|
The question of whether or not the most important aim of science should be to help people's lives has been the subject of public discussion. This sentence has been marked as perfect! This sentence has been marked as perfect! |
|
I tend to agree that science should work to make people's life easier. I tend to agree that science should work to make people's li This sentence has been marked as perfect! |
|
To begin, science can be more founded when it shows its application in real life. To begin, science can This sentence has been marked as perfect! |
|
Investors usually put their money on this type of investigative work when it solves real life problems, such as the COVID-19. Investors usually put their money into "Investors usually invest their money in (something)" is a more formal way of expressing "put their money into (something)" |
|
When the world were struggling with this contagious disease, vaccinations were the ideal solution to that epidemic. When the world w When the world w technically, 'epidemic' is for an outbreak in a specific area |
|
Many pharmaceutical corporations developed their vaccine and investigations because of the money they received by governments and private investors. Many pharmaceutical corporations developed their vaccine and Many pharmaceutical corporations developed their vaccine and investigations because of the money they received |
|
In addition, many science research that are not applicable in real life end up at university's libraries without being known. In addition, In addition, |
|
When scientists are unable to explain the real application of their research, they reduce the number of people who are interested in it. When scientists are unable to explain the real-world application of their research, it When scientists are unable to explain the real application of their research, technically "fewer people" is correct, but "less" also gets used for countable objects |
|
That makes their knowledge and findings obsolete and only relevant for a small group of scientists. That makes their knowledge and findings obsolete and only relevant I'm not sure obsolete is the correct word here. Obsolete, when referring to knowledge and research, could imply that the findings are old or useless, and probably based on such old science, that no one who wants to be correct and advanced in scientific knowledge would ever use it. The use of the word obsolete coupled with the next phrase of "only relevant to a small group of scientists" then is a little strange, because if the research is actually out-of-date or useless, why would anyone what to use it - even a small group of scientists? Unfortunately, I don't have a good replacement phrase though. It's not a bad usage, just slightly dichotomous. This sentence has been marked as perfect! |
|
For instance, many scientist papers that are only recognized in the academic have a limited scope and impact in a society because of their lack of real life implementations. For instance, many scienti For instance, many scienti |
|
In conclusion, I believe that the aim of science should be to improve people's life because in that way they are more financially founded and also their knowledge would not destine to remained at universities and for the only use of students In conclusion, I believe that the aim of science should be to improve people's li In conclusion, I believe that the aim of science should be to improve people's li |
You need LangCorrect Premium to access this feature.
Go Premium