The most important aim of science should be to improve people's lives. To what extent do you agree ?

Science and technology are advancing rapidly with novel innovations created everyday. It is commonly believed that those breakthroughs should take human life satisfaction as their principles. I partially agree with the above-mentioned notion, reasons are to follow.

On the one hand, science immensely influences citizen's living standards. First and foremost, it is apparent that laboratory experiments play a pivotal role in the medical industry, hence enhancing the overall strength of individuals. Medicines, antidotes, vaccines,...etc are the most noticeable outcomes of this statement. Moreover, scientific breakthroughs enable some occupations to become more straightforward. In other words, life has been functioning clockwise with those revolutions.For instance, commuting was made trivial due to the invention of wheels and energy sources.

On the other hand, however, the benefits of other creatures are not the aspect to be overlooked. Admittedly, the greenhouse effect is attributed to technological advancements in which profits inhabitants's life satisfaction. Therefore, it is mandatory for such breakthroughs to tackle the conundrums, thus reversing the planet contamination. Not only should environments be considered, ensuring biodiversity is one paramount importance as well. Putting it in another way, there is a demand for solutions to protect the endangered animals and probably in the far-fetched future to resurrect some extinct creatures.

In conclusion, with the fore-mentioned notions, I believe that science's goals should be equally distributed equally amongst the profits of human beings and other species. As a result, it is advised that there should be innovations that affect all living creatures optimistically.

You only wrote 212 words. That is an automatic failing essay score. That is because the minimum count is 250. Fail to write 250 words and your essay will receive equivalent percentage deductions based on the missing words. It is impossible to recover from that sort of deduction as it leaves you with an almost 0 scoring consideration for the preliminaries. You should have also used a more appropriate comparison reasoning paragraph in the body of the essay. You should have explained the points that you do not agree with in the paragraph, then followed up, in the same paragraph, with the points that you agree with. In that case, you would have been scored on your use of transitional phrases or sentences.