Hello, please help to evaluate my essay. If possible, please grade it on the 6 point scale. Thank you very much!Many important discoveries or creations are accidental: it is usually while seeking the answer to one question that we come across the answer to another.
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 and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position.
The ways we perceive an important discovery or creation as accidental or not depend on considerations of the whole research process. If scientists have transparent goals and orientations prior to their research, then any unexpected finding should only be considered soon-or-later discoveries. Otherwise, their discoveries can be deemed fortuitous. Because the statement is equivocal in this regard, I cannot fully contend to its idea.
First of all, the ambiguous tone in the first half of the statement makes it unpalatable. Discoveries are direct outcomes of meticulous processes including prior plans and subsequent efforts. Any accidental finding that deemed important should only be understood as an attribution and an obvious result along the processes. Issac Newton founded the idea of gravity after fortuitously hit by a falling apple, The accident seemingly attributes to this important discovery in physics and astronomy; however, we cannot neglect the fact that Newton himself was a physicist and he had always oriented his research to answer the operational mechanisms of the earth. His discovery and consequently the foundation of gravity theory was a rising finding during his research progress, and since it was significantly substantial, many is flawed to refer to the theory as an accidental discovery.
The statement is also specious if we acknowledge a fact that important discoveries or creations - though accidentally founded - are not the final answers of a well-planned research, but are merely unexpected results. Early 1900s a group of scientists were assigned the task to search for medical substances that could eradicate infectious bacteria. The scientists had worked hardly, and unexpectedly along the progress they found penicillin - a mild substance that profoundly used to kill minor bacteria. Or Marrie Currie, the famous Poland female chemist, who spent most of life to extract pure Uranium, but "accidentally" garnered Radium. If one solely looks at these substantially findings, it is intuitive to think they are all some luckily creations. Yet further examination of the whole process will prove the otherwise: such important findings are unpredicted outcomes of a meticulous and purpose-driven process. This notion gainsays the ambivalent idea implied by the word "accidental" in the statement.
For proponents of the statement, there are some critical discoveries that are purported purely accidental. Christopher Columbus discovered Americas while his initial plan was to find West India, or Mendel initiated the idea of genes while simply working as a botanist in a garden. Nevertheless, such discoveries were not in any relation with prior intention of researchers because there seemed to be no questions or hypotheses formed at the onset of the research. On the other word, these great discoverers did not have lucid and elaborate plan in advance of their research. Columbus merely sailed cross the sea without any firm evidence that West India might exist. Mendel purely studied characteristics of plants as his job routines required. In essence, their research lacked the clear orientation that should be conspicuous in any formal research. Consequently, we perhaps should not attribute their discoveries as "a crossing accident" while searching for another answer.
Research must always be purpose-driven and well-oriented in order to yield meaningful findings. Any fortuitous finding along the research process, whether it is important or not, should be conceived as a soon-or-later and obvious outcome of the whole process. The statement failed to capture this notion because it presents a sense that many important discoveries and creations are purely accidental. I employed evidence with relevant arguments to delineate its flaw.