Some people argue that holding sporting events is beneficial to countries’ development. However,
other people hold the opposite opinion. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.
In many parts of the world, international sporting events have become increasingly common. Many hold a belief that holding sports occasions does a great job in boosting the development of countries; while opponents argue that it could bring about many serious problems. To the best of my knowledge, the former point of view is more reasonable for the following reasons.
Firstly, it is note-worthy that sporting events contribute significantly to the local tourism industry. Nowadays, many studies have shown that the successful organization of sports events, typically on a global scale, is accompanied by the increasing number of foreign tourists. Therefore, it will be a grave mistake to overlook the fact that by being the host, a country is able to attract a large array of athletes and their supporters from all around the world. For example, the Olympic Games and World Cup promoted development of domestic industries like accommodation, transport or entertainment to satisfy the requirements of more visitors. This example is the illustration of the fact that holding sports festivals has chronic effects on host countries’ development.
Secondly, the counter-argument raised by objectors to this is that holding sporting events needs many budgets from governments; otherwise, local governments and authorities that on the tight budget have to spend on various social aspects, typically medication or education. This argument could be true to some extent; however, it is incomplete. What they fail to take into account is the fact that despite high expenses of organizing sports occasions, sports events are regarded as one of the top priority to governments as preserving traditional culture. For instance, Brazil’s football is the most popular sport around the world, which is a prominent part of national identity. As a result, sporting events should be protected to develop countries’ culture.
In conclusion, holding sports festivals plays an instrument in countries’ development towards tourism industries and traditional culture in a long run as mentioned above.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2021-07-19 | maiphuong0610 | 84 | view |
| 2021-07-19 | maiphuong0610 | 78 | view |
| 2021-07-19 | maiphuong0610 | 61 | view |
| 2021-07-19 | maiphuong0610 | 61 | view |
| 2021-07-19 | maiphuong0610 | 89 | view |
- The chart below shows the movement of people from rural to urban areas in three countries and predictions for future years 73
- The figures below show the changes in the number of graduates in the UK and percentages of 5 groups of graduates working in different fields from 1992 to 2002 89
- More and more plastic waste has polluted cities countrysides and oceans What problems does it cause and what measures can be taken 73
- the chart below shows what Anthropology graduates from one university did after finishing their undergraduate degree course The table shows the salaries of the anthropologists in work after five years 73
- The graph below shows the number of tourists visiting a Caribbean island between 2010 and 2017 78
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 92, Rule ID: MANY_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun hold seems to be countable; consider using: 'Many holds'.
Suggestion: Many holds
...events have become increasingly common. Many hold a belief that holding sports occasions ...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, firstly, however, if, look, second, secondly, so, therefore, while, for example, for instance, in conclusion, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 13.1623246493 114% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 7.85571142285 51% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 10.4138276553 58% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 10.0 7.30460921844 137% => OK
Pronoun: 19.0 24.0651302605 79% => OK
Preposition: 45.0 41.998997996 107% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 8.3376753507 168% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1771.0 1615.20841683 110% => OK
No of words: 320.0 315.596192385 101% => OK
Chars per words: 5.534375 5.12529762239 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.22948505376 4.20363070211 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.15137463805 2.80592935109 112% => OK
Unique words: 188.0 176.041082164 107% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.5875 0.561755894193 105% => OK
syllable_count: 531.9 506.74238477 105% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 5.43587174349 92% => OK
Article: 4.0 2.52805611222 158% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.10420841683 95% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.76152304609 63% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 16.0721442886 87% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 20.2975951904 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 55.6586260436 49.4020404114 113% => OK
Chars per sentence: 126.5 106.682146367 119% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.8571428571 20.7667163134 110% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.5 7.06120827912 135% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.67935871743 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 3.9879759519 25% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 3.4128256513 88% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.197813852545 0.244688304435 81% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.069980216297 0.084324248473 83% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0475198507312 0.0667982634062 71% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.128882022516 0.151304729494 85% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0191702105164 0.056905535591 34% => 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: 16.0 13.0946893788 122% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 40.69 50.2224549098 81% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.1 11.3001002004 116% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.09 12.4159519038 122% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.91 8.58950901804 115% => OK
difficult_words: 105.0 78.4519038076 134% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 9.78957915832 123% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.1190380762 107% => OK
text_standard: 16.0 10.7795591182 148% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 78.6516853933 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.0 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.