Companies should provide sports and social facilities for local communities.
To what extent do you agree?
One issue generating much argument is who should provide social and sports facilities for the community. While a number of individuals argue that this is the job of corporate organizations, I contend that it is not their responsibility, rather, this is mainly the task of the government. However, corporate entities can contribute their own quota as they wish.
It behoves the government to construct playgrounds and football practice pitches for the citizenry. This constitutes what an elected authority owes those it is supposed to serve and this is what the citizens deserve. In other words, it is part of the government's social contract with the people. For instance, there are usually ministries under the government for social and sports development, they usually cater to these needs. Moreover, these ministries have a budget every year, hence, money should have been provided.
On the other hand, conglomerates can choose to give back to their communities. Where a business entity feels that it has benefited from the community it is located, it can offer charity to the people. This can be by sponsoring the provision of sports arenas for use by the locals, or by upgrading existing facilities. For example, Shell has helped to build training grounds in some Nigerian communities, where young footballing talents are groomed, who will tomorrow become superstars. To put it another way, an organization can decide to donate a mini stadium as part of its corporate social responsibility.
In conclusion, although people say companies should be the ones to provide sports complexes for the inhabitants of their community, I opine that it is a duty meant for the government. Nonetheless, business entities can choose to augment the effort of the government in this regard.
- Companies should provide sports and social facilities for local communities To what extent do you agree 73
- Under British and Australian laws a jury in a criminal case has no access to information about the defendant s past criminal record This protects the person who is being accused of the crime Some lawyers have suggested that this practice should be changed 61
- Under British and Australian laws a jury in a criminal case has no access to information about the defendant s past criminal record This protects the person who is being accused of the crime Some lawyers have suggested that this practice should be changed 73
- Some of the methods used in advertising are unethical and unacceptable in today s society To what extent do you agree with this view 84
- Under British and Australian laws a jury in a criminal case has no access to information about the defendant s past criminal record This protects the person who is being accused of the crime Some lawyers have suggested that this practice should be changed 73
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, hence, however, moreover, nonetheless, so, while, as for, for example, for instance, in conclusion, in other words, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 7.0 200% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 1.00243902439 998% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 5.0 6.8 74% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 3.15609756098 253% => Less relative clauses wanted (maybe 'which' is over used).
Pronoun: 31.0 5.60731707317 553% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 30.0 33.7804878049 89% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 3.97073170732 252% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1503.0 965.302439024 156% => OK
No of words: 286.0 196.424390244 146% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.25524475524 4.92477711251 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.11236361783 3.73543355544 110% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.01559389559 2.65546596893 114% => OK
Unique words: 165.0 106.607317073 155% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.576923076923 0.547539520022 105% => OK
syllable_count: 472.5 283.868780488 166% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.45097560976 117% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 1.53170731707 653% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 1.0 4.33902439024 23% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.07073170732 187% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 0.482926829268 207% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 3.36585365854 119% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 8.94146341463 168% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.4926829268 84% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 34.6057156487 43.030603864 80% => OK
Chars per sentence: 100.2 112.824112599 89% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.0666666667 22.9334400587 83% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.2 5.23603664747 176% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 3.83414634146 104% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 1.69756097561 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 3.70975609756 135% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 1.13902439024 176% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.09268292683 195% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.222645429401 0.215688989381 103% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0688985782418 0.103423049105 67% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0808765404639 0.0843802449381 96% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.136014700724 0.15604864568 87% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0338870249675 0.0819641961636 41% => 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: 12.9 13.2329268293 97% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 43.73 61.2550243902 71% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.51609756098 135% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 10.3012195122 116% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.23 11.4140731707 116% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.16 8.06136585366 114% => OK
difficult_words: 83.0 40.7170731707 204% => Less difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 11.4329268293 79% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.9970731707 87% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.0658536585 81% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 73.0337078652 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 6.5 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.