Some people say that government should spend money on measures to save languages that are used by few speakers, while others believe that it is a waste of financial resources. Discuss both views and give your opinion
Language preservation has been highlighted as an emerging issue, capturing significant public attention due to its implications on societies. Despite some advantages associated could be pronounced, more financial resources should be poured into other practical public sectors.
On the one hand, saving endangered languages could bestow cultural benefits. Languages are proved to be the representation of speakers’ cultures. If a language dies, the transmission of original customs and oral traditions among native speakers is non-existent, making the reduction in cultural diversity and data sources in linguistics, anthropology, prehistory inevitable products, thereby hampering scientific research endeavours into human development in the long-term.
On the other hand, more expenditures should be earmarked for other practical sectors. First, official authorities should increase budget allocation on the advancement of agricultural technologies and innovations. For example, the betterment of irrigation and genetically modified crops, allowing plants’ stronger resistance to pesticides and arid soils would guarantee higher productivity, feeding into food securities for the population. In addition, because medical facilities and institutions in many nations, especially the third-world ones are severely underfunded and understaffed, higher injection of funds into facilities procurement and medical practitioners training could be associated with more reliable healthcare systems. This means that patients with hazardous medical conditions could be treated effectively without concerns about financial burdens, under-qualified doctors and outdated medical techniques, decreasing the nations’ mortality rates in the long terms.
In conclusion, I firmly believe that budget distributions should be prioritized for other underfunded sectors such as agriculture and healthcare rather than linguistics preservation irrespective of its cultural impacts. Should governments’ investments into such aforementioned public areas increase, the possibilities of improved living standards and citizens’ well-beings are enormously promising in the long term.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-02-21 | grahamoneil | 95 | view |
- Some people think that it is good for a country’s culture to broadcast foreign films and TV show. Others,however think it is best to produce local films and shows. Discuss both views and give your opinions. 84
- Nowadays animal experiments are widely used to develop new medicines and to test the safety of other products. Some people argue that these experiments should be banned because it is morally wrong to cause animals to suffer, while others are in favor of t 61
- The given pie charts compare the expenses in 7 different categories in 1966 and 1996 by American Citizens 49
- Rich countries should not employ skilled labour from poor countries as poor countries need the workers more Do you agree or disagree 80
- The chart below shows the number of travellers using three major airports in New York City between 1995 and 2000. 78
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 374, Rule ID: PROGRESSIVE_VERBS[1]
Message: This verb is normally not used in the progressive form. Try a simple form instead.
...ing standards and citizens’ well-beings are enormously promising in the long term.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, if, so, third, well, for example, in addition, in conclusion, such as, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 13.1623246493 91% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 7.85571142285 127% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 10.4138276553 106% => OK
Relative clauses : 2.0 7.30460921844 27% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 6.0 24.0651302605 25% => OK
Preposition: 34.0 41.998997996 81% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 8.3376753507 180% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1890.0 1615.20841683 117% => OK
No of words: 283.0 315.596192385 90% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 6.67844522968 5.12529762239 130% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.10153676581 4.20363070211 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.39925288134 2.80592935109 121% => OK
Unique words: 189.0 176.041082164 107% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.667844522968 0.561755894193 119% => OK
syllable_count: 576.0 506.74238477 114% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 2.0 1.60771543086 124% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 5.43587174349 37% => OK
Article: 3.0 2.52805611222 119% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.10420841683 95% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.76152304609 126% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 16.0721442886 75% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 23.0 20.2975951904 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 82.7269185668 49.4020404114 167% => OK
Chars per sentence: 157.5 106.682146367 148% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.5833333333 20.7667163134 114% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.33333333333 7.06120827912 118% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.67935871743 104% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 3.9879759519 25% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 3.4128256513 59% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.12273470368 0.244688304435 50% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0513988495717 0.084324248473 61% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0383970027667 0.0667982634062 57% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0801811362666 0.151304729494 53% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.024035247762 0.056905535591 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: 21.8 13.0946893788 166% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 14.29 50.2224549098 28% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 14.6 7.44779559118 196% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 17.0 11.3001002004 150% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 21.76 12.4159519038 175% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 12.25 8.58950901804 143% => OK
difficult_words: 134.0 78.4519038076 171% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 9.78957915832 133% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.1190380762 111% => OK
text_standard: 22.0 10.7795591182 204% => The average readability is very high. Good job!
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 89.8876404494 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 8.0 Out of 9
---------------------
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.