06/6/2015: Some people prefer to help or support directly in the local community for people who need it, however, others prefer to give money to the national or international charities, discuss both views and give your own opinion.
It is understandable that investing money in the local or multinational charities is essential to back the group of society who have a difficult background as a breakthrough. However, a great number of people are still skeptical about the various ricks from this solution. I am convinced that the charities are responsible for supporting this group better than when individuals do it by themselves.
On the one hand, funding by the charities is superior to other ways due to two prime reasons. First of all, these charities have an impartial role to allocate an equal amount of money or other items for people who need their help. As a result, it deem to be an useful air which alleviates the unfair distribution as well as avoid wasting the kindness of charitable donors. Secondly, most of charities nowadays are extremely professional and supporters can totally believe in their activities. For example, in Vietnam, university charities are very popular because they can visit to faraway places where there are still poor people to stimulate them without outside financial help. Therefore, there is no doubt that benefactors can devote themselves to these organizations.
On the other hand, a number of people would rather fund directly people in difficult circumstances than send money to charity organizations in order to mitigate numerous drawbacks. Some charities take advantages of people’s kindness and use it for their own benefits. Consequently, it may accidentally exert an adverse influence on the reputation of other mainstream organizations. However, individuals will struggle with several problems if they have to implement it by alone, thereby making them feel frustrated. For instance, if people take part in a collective they will share difficulties with each other when going to remote areas, it somewhat minimizes risks of going to charity.
In the conclusion, in spite of the fact that supporting directly in poorer people is a viable solution to reduce the aforementioned issue, I wholly believe that charity organizations are more optimized and helpful than remainder.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-11-06 | phanduydat | 84 | view |
- transport 73
- Nowadays, mass media have a profound impact on shaping people’s idea. To what extent do you agree or disagree? 73
- Nowadays, families are not as close as in the past and a lot of people have become used to this. Explain the reasons for this and discuss any possible effects it may have on society. 73
- Nowadays, mass media have a profound impact on shaping people’s idea. To what extent do you agree or disagree? 89
- It is more important to spend public money promoting a healthy lifestyle in order to prevent illness than to spend it on the treatment of people who are already ill. To what extent do you agree or disagree? 84
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 248, Rule ID: IT_VBZ[1]
Message: Did you mean 'deems'?
Suggestion: deems
...le who need their help. As a result, it deem to be an useful air which alleviates th...
^^^^
Line 3, column 259, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'a' instead of 'an' if the following word doesn't start with a vowel sound, e.g. 'a sentence', 'a university'
Suggestion: a
... their help. As a result, it deem to be an useful air which alleviates the unfair ...
^^
Line 3, column 384, Rule ID: MOST_SOME_OF_NNS[1]
Message: After 'most of', you should use 'the' ('most of the charities') or simply say ''most charities''.
Suggestion: most of the charities; most charities
...indness of charitable donors. Secondly, most of charities nowadays are extremely professional and...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, consequently, first, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, still, therefore, well, for example, for instance, no doubt, as a result, as well as, first of all, in spite of, 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: 8.0 7.85571142285 102% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 10.4138276553 48% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 11.0 7.30460921844 151% => OK
Pronoun: 28.0 24.0651302605 116% => OK
Preposition: 45.0 41.998997996 107% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 8.3376753507 84% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1774.0 1615.20841683 110% => OK
No of words: 332.0 315.596192385 105% => OK
Chars per words: 5.34337349398 5.12529762239 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.2685907696 4.20363070211 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.12040633485 2.80592935109 111% => OK
Unique words: 192.0 176.041082164 109% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.578313253012 0.561755894193 103% => OK
syllable_count: 567.9 506.74238477 112% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 5.43587174349 129% => OK
Article: 2.0 2.52805611222 79% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.10420841683 95% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.76152304609 105% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 16.0721442886 93% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 20.2975951904 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 40.1277958528 49.4020404114 81% => OK
Chars per sentence: 118.266666667 106.682146367 111% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.1333333333 20.7667163134 107% => OK
Discourse Markers: 13.0666666667 7.06120827912 185% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.01903807615 60% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 8.67935871743 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 3.9879759519 75% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 3.4128256513 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.206889988292 0.244688304435 85% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0664329774623 0.084324248473 79% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0508590877317 0.0667982634062 76% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.124454754705 0.151304729494 82% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0258018481339 0.056905535591 45% => 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: 14.8 13.0946893788 113% => 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: 13.69 12.4159519038 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.06 8.58950901804 105% => OK
difficult_words: 91.0 78.4519038076 116% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 9.78957915832 112% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.1190380762 107% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 10.7795591182 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 84.2696629213 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.5 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.