Some people think governments should spend as much money as possible exploring outer space (for example, traveling to the Moon and to other planets). Other people disagree and think governments should spend this money for our basic needs on earth. Which of these opinions do you agree with? Use specific reasons and details to support your answer.
Government expenditures play a pivotal role in the overall outcome of society; they influence every aspect of a country: hospitals, educational system, welfare, infrastructure, and the economy as a whole. Thus, the government should be very careful when planning next year’s expenditures. I personally believe that government should spend money on improving the life of their citizens, rather than exploring the universe. This is for two reasons which I will explore in the following essay.
To begin with, billions of people live in extreme poverty around the world; they spend less than one dollar per day. Nevertheless, governments around the world are not making enough efforts to change the situations for these destitute people. In fact, excluding most of the European countries, the rest of the world spends a majority of their income in the army and for making the wealthy people wealthier. Moreover, if we add the outer space exploration expenses to this equation, there will be no funds left to support the well-being of the citizens. Russia is a compelling example of this. Even though Russia has one of the highest gross domestic products, life for the average citizen is terrible in comparison with developed countries. This is a consequence of government spending huge amounts of money in army and in exploring the universe just to compete with the United States of America. If Russia had invested their budget in improving the quality of life, their people would have been much happier.
Secondly, one single trip outside the Earth’s atmosphere costs hundreds of millions of dollars. Moreover, if we do a cost-benefit analysis to this trip, we will see that it is not worth it because it is useful only for scientists who are interested in this subject; and it might be useful for people after thousands of years if our planet will become an environment where organisms cannot prevail. Furthermore, a large number of these launches fail even before passing the atmosphere. Therefore, these explorations should be done only by private firms who want to profit from wealthy people interested in going outside the earth. For example, SpaceX is a company founded by the famous Elon Musk; it is a huge private company that has launched successfully numerous spaceships and has returned them again. The reason behind these launches is to gain billions in profits from wealthy people or scientific organizations who want to go. So, government should focus in other areas because there are private companies who can do it better.
In conclusion, I acknowledge the fact that some people think that government should spend more in exploring the universe. However, I support the argument that governments should spend more money in improving life quality on earth. This is because there are billions of destitute people who need help, and also there are private companies who can do a better job and make profits from their operations.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-04-03 | hasan123456 | 80 | view |
- The Chevalier de Seingalt 80
- Professors appearing on television 76
- A company is going to give some money either to support the arts or to protect the environment. Which do you think the company should choose? Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer. 80
- What kind of knowledge is more useful? 80
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement Overall the widespread use of the internet has a mostly positive effect on life in today s world Use reasons and details to support your opinion 95
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 417, Rule ID: LARGE_NUMBER_OF[1]
Message: Specify a number, remove phrase, or simply use 'many' or 'numerous'
Suggestion: many; numerous
... organisms cannot prevail. Furthermore, a large number of these launches fail even before passing...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, furthermore, however, if, moreover, nevertheless, second, secondly, so, therefore, thus, well, for example, in conclusion, in fact, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 10.4613686534 201% => Less to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 5.04856512141 317% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 8.0 7.30242825607 110% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 12.0772626932 124% => OK
Pronoun: 39.0 22.412803532 174% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 61.0 30.3222958057 201% => Less preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 12.0 5.01324503311 239% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2480.0 1373.03311258 181% => OK
No of words: 481.0 270.72406181 178% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.15592515593 5.08290768461 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.68313059816 4.04702891845 116% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.79711167975 2.5805825403 108% => OK
Unique words: 255.0 145.348785872 175% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.530145530146 0.540411800872 98% => OK
syllable_count: 776.7 419.366225166 185% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 12.0 3.25607064018 369% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 4.0 8.23620309051 49% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 1.25165562914 320% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 3.0 1.51434878587 198% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 13.0662251656 168% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 21.2450331126 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 51.8884093492 49.2860985944 105% => OK
Chars per sentence: 112.727272727 110.228320801 102% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.8636363636 21.698381199 101% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.86363636364 7.06452816374 97% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 15.0 4.33554083885 346% => Less positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 4.45695364238 67% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.27373068433 94% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.375742167981 0.272083759551 138% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.101526789567 0.0996497079465 102% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0779282340739 0.0662205650399 118% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.230662916085 0.162205337803 142% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0546052975807 0.0443174109184 123% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.8 13.3589403974 103% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 53.8541721854 93% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 11.0289183223 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.65 12.2367328918 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.55 8.42419426049 101% => OK
difficult_words: 118.0 63.6247240618 185% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 10.7273730684 79% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.498013245 99% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
Rates: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.0 Out of 30
---------------------
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.