It is sometimes said that governments should dedicate a fixed proportion of their country’s income to foreign aid each year, and this fixed proportion should always be donated to other countries. Opponents of this idea, however, say that aid should have no fixed proportion, and help should only be sent to other countries at times when it is really needed. What are the arguments on both sides of this debate? What is your own view on the matter?
Sometimes the affluent countries fiscally help the underdeveloped countries. Notwithstanding, some are of the opinion that the wealthy nation should allot some specific parts of their income to indigent societies yearly. Others put forward it is not a desideratum to give alms to such countries every year, but paying donations just can occur whenever they require. There exist some debates on both facets, which will be discussed succinctly.
On the one hand, those who are the proponents of the former credence aver governments should impute a specific proportion of their country’s income as aid to foreign nations. First and foremost, each nation is more cognizant of their national tribulation; accordingly, maybe they are going to disseminate equally the bestowed money for several damaged sections. For example, when a country encounters flood damage, a plethora of opulent societies denote money or makeshift instruments for that catastrophic issue, while likely that problem-stricken people may require aid on areas, e.g., farming and constructing infrastructure. Moreover, when countries determine a static proportion, they are able to make a program for their annual budget.
On the other hand, those who are the opponents of the first notion maintain wealthy nations should endow their income to problem-faced countries without pinning down a fixed proportion. In this way, it can be effortlessly tracked down where the denoted money is invested. Because in such impecunious nations, the corruption of incumbents is irrefutable. Furthermore, they commonly suffer from having a robust programming system for equitably dispersing donations, intuitively leading to its waste. To this end, it is on the shoulder of the donor nations deciding when and how much they should pay.
To briefly recapitulate, nonetheless, the latter idea is superficially arresting, i.e., tracking down the money and bereft of its managing, it is sagacious should the payment be disbursed regularly. In this sense, opulent societies can curb donated countries from other methods, such as FATF; moreover, they can forecast their budget. Eventually, I single out the former credence.
- Parents should be held legally responsible for their children’s acts. What is your opinion? Support it with personal examples. 73
- In many countries women and men are working full time. It is therefore, logical for women and men to share household works. To what extent do you agree or disagree? 84
- In the past shopping was a routine domestic task Many people nowadays regard it as a hobby To what extent do you think this is a positive trend 84
- In some countries owning a home rather than renting one is very important for people Why might this be the case Do you think it is a positive or negative situation 73
- Should Government spend money on art when they have so many other important issues? 61
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 214, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...t be disbursed regularly. In this sense, opulent societies can curb donated count...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
accordingly, briefly, but, e.g., first, furthermore, if, may, moreover, nonetheless, so, while, for example, such as, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 13.1623246493 114% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 7.85571142285 140% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 10.4138276553 58% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 10.0 7.30460921844 137% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 24.0651302605 112% => OK
Preposition: 35.0 41.998997996 83% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 8.3376753507 96% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1850.0 1615.20841683 115% => OK
No of words: 330.0 315.596192385 105% => OK
Chars per words: 5.60606060606 5.12529762239 109% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.26214759535 4.20363070211 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.07539779953 2.80592935109 110% => OK
Unique words: 202.0 176.041082164 115% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.612121212121 0.561755894193 109% => OK
syllable_count: 561.6 506.74238477 111% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 5.43587174349 166% => OK
Article: 3.0 2.52805611222 119% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.10420841683 190% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 0.809619238477 124% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.76152304609 126% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 16.0721442886 100% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 20.2975951904 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 56.1359607894 49.4020404114 114% => OK
Chars per sentence: 115.625 106.682146367 108% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.625 20.7667163134 99% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.4375 7.06120827912 119% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.67935871743 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 3.9879759519 100% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 3.4128256513 234% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.306609999685 0.244688304435 125% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0851927329245 0.084324248473 101% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0722076833858 0.0667982634062 108% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.173485147944 0.151304729494 115% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0194133242585 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: 15.3 13.0946893788 117% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 42.72 50.2224549098 85% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 11.3001002004 109% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.26 12.4159519038 123% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.13 8.58950901804 118% => OK
difficult_words: 115.0 78.4519038076 147% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 9.78957915832 82% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.1190380762 99% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 10.7795591182 93% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 89.8876404494 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 8.0 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.