Governments should invest as much in the arts as they do in the military.
Speaker here states that government should invest in the arts as much as they do in the military. I support the speaker's statement, yet it's specifically narrow there is honesty in the appeal mentioned above. Many shallow-minded organizations or corresponding governments neglect the overall development of their own and concentrate on a few issues which they can vision some returns with. The point is not that all governments should invest in all fields equally but any government should foresee some consequences for their own activities, the scope of advancements in a few fields, the number of people pursuing that specific field, etc unless there is an emergency situation and investments required are crossing the buffer amount saved by the government.
The overall development of any organization leads to many optimistic and comfortable situations, on the other hand, prejudice towards a category of fields indeed results in vicious scenarios. On the top of my head, a country named Pakistan, a few years back invested almost all of its economy into military, terrorism, etc. And at that point in time, more than 30 percent of their people were starving and had meager, there was no food available yet people were forced to pursue firing and terrorism, which in turn ate much of its population down the line. Otherwise, if they could have sent resources and let all children educate, by now Pakistan's average economy would be as good as other countries in its surroundings.
Long back in the 1900s, a country named India realized the value of sports, arts, etc, and started encouraging not only with money or resources but also with technical, and coaching facilities. But, not to be as one-sided, if the country is striving for survival which is also almost an emergency condition. The expenses will absolutely in the direction of achieving the control in the form of survival. Many developing countries or organizations fall under this category. Certainly, in any way, every part of the organization should work hard to reach survival along with minding the futuristic possibilities.
In sum, I undeniably concede with the speaker's palpable intention, yet I urge to request the speaker to myriad his/her thinking and vision. Until and unless there exists an emergency scenario, any government should consider its overall development, considering all factors mentioned prior. As many said potential in any entity is non-trivial if and only if it possesses an innovative and ingenious vision, else it will remain redundant.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-11-25 | ekarumeblessing@icloud.com | 54 | view |
| 2024-11-24 | ekarumeblessing@icloud.com | 54 | view |
| 2024-11-12 | ekarumeblessing@icloud.com | 58 | view |
| 2024-10-31 | ekarumeblessing@icloud.com | 79 | view |
| 2024-10-29 | batterylow_123 | 50 | view |
- A nation should require all its students to study the same national curriculum until they enter college rather than allow schools in different parts of the nation to determine which academic courses to offer 66
- A study conducted at nearby Oceania University showed that faculty retention is higher when professors are offered free tuition at the university for their own college aged children Therefore Seatown should institute a free tuition policy for its professo 72
- Claim Even though young people often receive the advice to follow your dreams more emphasis should be placed on picking worthy goals Reason Many people s dreams are inherently selfish 75
- The best way for a society to prepare its young people for leadership in government industry or other fields is by instilling in them a sense of cooperation not competition 62
- The following is taken from a memo from the advertising director of the Super Screen Movie Production Company According to a recent report from our marketing department during the past year fewer people attended Super Screen produced movies than in any ot 52
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 113, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'speakers'' or 'speaker's'?
Suggestion: speakers'; speaker's
... they do in the military. I support the speakers statement, yet its specifically narrow ...
^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 79, Rule ID: ALLOW_TO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'requesting'? Or maybe you should add a pronoun? In active voice, 'urge' + 'to' takes an object, usually a pronoun.
Suggestion: requesting
...speakers palpable intention, yet I urge to request the speaker to myriad his/her thinking ...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, if, so, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 19.5258426966 61% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.4196629213 81% => OK
Conjunction : 21.0 14.8657303371 141% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 11.3162921348 62% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 24.0 33.0505617978 73% => OK
Preposition: 51.0 58.6224719101 87% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 12.9106741573 116% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2127.0 2235.4752809 95% => OK
No of words: 408.0 442.535393258 92% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.21323529412 5.05705443957 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.49433085973 4.55969084622 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.97164670038 2.79657885939 106% => OK
Unique words: 232.0 215.323595506 108% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.56862745098 0.4932671777 115% => OK
syllable_count: 666.0 704.065955056 95% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 6.24550561798 32% => OK
Article: 8.0 4.99550561798 160% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 3.10617977528 129% => OK
Conjunction: 5.0 1.77640449438 281% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 7.0 4.38483146067 160% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 20.2370786517 79% => 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: 25.0 23.0359550562 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 68.3689154057 60.3974514979 113% => OK
Chars per sentence: 132.9375 118.986275619 112% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.5 23.4991977007 109% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.25 5.21951772744 43% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 10.2758426966 78% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 5.13820224719 97% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.83258426966 62% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.20798780087 0.243740707755 85% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0701629294887 0.0831039109588 84% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.146252173247 0.0758088955206 193% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.118913825206 0.150359130593 79% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.133967819552 0.0667264976115 201% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.9 14.1392134831 112% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 46.1 48.8420337079 94% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.0 12.1743820225 107% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.23 12.1639044944 109% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.21 8.38706741573 110% => OK
difficult_words: 112.0 100.480337079 111% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.0 11.8971910112 126% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.2143820225 107% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.7820224719 110% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Better to have 5/6 paragraphs with 3/4 arguments. And try always support/against one side but compare two sides, like this:
para 1: introduction
para 2: reason 1. address both of the views presented for reason 1
para 3: reason 2. address both of the views presented for reason 2
para 4: reason 3. address both of the views presented for reason 3
para 5: reason 4. address both of the views presented for reason 4 (optional)
para 6: conclusion.
Rates: 75.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.5 Out of 6
---------------------
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.