Some people believe that government funding of the arts is necessary to ensure that the arts can flourish and be available to all people. Others believe that government funding of the arts threatens the integrity of the arts.
Nowadays, governments are supporting art, including painting, music, theater, cinema and so on despite the fact that there is a controversial question whether governments must not prepare budget for art because of threatening integrity of the arts. I am afraid, I disagree with stop supporting arts by governments. The reasons to substantiate my viewpoint are explored in the following.
To begin with, developing arts, is a pleasant happening, appearing by investing in arts by governments. It is crystal clear, cultivating arts and helping artist such as painter, musician, actors, led to access people to arts, quickly and individual finds her or his favorable art. Under such a circumstance, increasing society knowledge about art and getting familiar with art, would be the first and foremost effects of developing arts. As an illustration, when we consider Iran traditional music as a successful example, we can perceive, funding traditional music, helps people to access to such a music easily. As result traditional music in that country improve, day by day. If Iran had never investigated in traditional music, they would not be the pioneer in that kind of music.
Opponents may argue that funding arts may have vulnerable effects on integrity of the arts. Unfortunately, it is often true for some government abusing from money and power obtaining through people. However, it does not mean, there is no solution for this problem. Laws are made, for these situations. Surely, if we put strong law for governments to prevent from participate in art integrity, we can ensure, funding arts is a right way. We can regard United States laws as an instance to drive this fact home. This country have effective rules to take care from art integrity and prevent governments, participating in it. Indeed, spending money on arts may have good side and bad side, but we can diminish bad effect of this matter by using strong rule in probable problems.
In conclusion, I do believe that dedicating money for arts by governments is a better choice, since this strategy will make an easy areas for accessing to art and also preventing from threats for art integrity is possible with a helps of accurate rules.
- The surest indicator of a great nation is represented not by the achievements of its rulers, artists, or scientists, but by the general welfare of its people. 59
- It is more enjoyable to have a job where you work only three days a week for long hours than to have a job where you work five days a week for shorter hours. 66
- A nation should require all of its students to study the same national curriculum until they enter college. 66
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statements Because people are busy doing so many different things they do very few things well Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer 68
- Technology has made children less creative than they were in the past. 70
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 133, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[2]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'area'?
Suggestion: area
..., since this strategy will make an easy areas for accessing to art and also preventin...
^^^^^
Line 4, column 228, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[1]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'a help' or simply 'helps'?
Suggestion: a help; helps
...eats for art integrity is possible with a helps of accurate rules.
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, may, so, as for, in conclusion, kind of, such as, i am afraid, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 19.5258426966 67% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.4196629213 89% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 14.8657303371 74% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 11.3162921348 53% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 28.0 33.0505617978 85% => OK
Preposition: 48.0 58.6224719101 82% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 12.9106741573 46% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1849.0 2235.4752809 83% => OK
No of words: 362.0 442.535393258 82% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.10773480663 5.05705443957 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.36191444098 4.55969084622 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.93609504809 2.79657885939 105% => OK
Unique words: 206.0 215.323595506 96% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.569060773481 0.4932671777 115% => OK
syllable_count: 574.2 704.065955056 82% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 11.0 6.24550561798 176% => OK
Article: 1.0 4.99550561798 20% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 3.10617977528 193% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.38483146067 91% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 20.2370786517 89% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 23.0359550562 87% => OK
Sentence length SD: 60.2308573145 60.3974514979 100% => OK
Chars per sentence: 102.722222222 118.986275619 86% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.1111111111 23.4991977007 86% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.94444444444 5.21951772744 114% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 10.2758426966 88% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 5.13820224719 97% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.83258426966 83% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.366121945211 0.243740707755 150% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.105126367123 0.0831039109588 126% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0869935571214 0.0758088955206 115% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.221812242493 0.150359130593 148% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.018721450952 0.0667264976115 28% => 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: 12.7 14.1392134831 90% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 48.8420337079 105% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.1743820225 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.36 12.1639044944 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.69 8.38706741573 104% => OK
difficult_words: 93.0 100.480337079 93% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 11.8971910112 92% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.2143820225 89% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => 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: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.