Some countries achieve international success by building specialized facilities to train top athletes instead of providing sports facilities that everyone can use.
Is it a positive or negative development?
In some nations, developing specialized facilities to train athletes takes precedence while investing in public facilities is ignored. Although this could help achieve international awards, I believe that it is a negative development.
Training professional athletes play a crucial role in sports since they are indeed human source to bring awards in international competition. Some countries tend to provide exclusive facilities in the process of training athletes, this could lead to an increase in training quality and athletes might have the opportunity to improve their inherent talent. For example, building fields and racing tracks that meet international standards. Moreover, providing specialized equipment means the government pays great attention and shows huge expectations of athletes, thus motivating sportsmen and encouraging them to do their best.
Although developing specialized facilities has some benefits, countries still have to focus on improving facilities for all citizens instead of ignoring their demands to play sports. Playing sports is demonstrated to boost mental and physical health, and if governments want to raise public health, they should provide sports equipment that everyone can access. In addition, not many people have enough financial means to attend sports clubs or take expensive sports courses, and facilities support in public destinations could enable them to exercise regularly. Supporting specialized equipment could also create sports communities, hence contributing to developing a healthy society. Moreover, in this way, the government has directly shown that public health is one the top of their awareness, therefore creating a firm belief with their citizen in terms of managing citizens’ health.
In conclusion, training athletes by providing specialized facilities is important to achieve higher success in international sports competitions. However, it is not worth the countries completely ignoring building means of sports. In my opinion, this is not a positive development.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-01-18 | honguyenlily | 84 | view |
| 2023-11-06 | thaokim2003 | 61 | view |
| 2023-11-02 | tracywu | 73 | view |
| 2023-10-23 | Giang Tran | 67 | view |
| 2023-10-03 | Cuberates | 73 | view |
- The maps show a coastal area before and after development
- People aim to achieve a balance between their work and personal life but few people achieve it What are the causes of the problem How to overcome it 73
- Whether or not a person achieves their aims in life is mostly related to luck To what extent do you agree or disagree 78
- The bar chart below shows the percentage of government spending on roads and transport in 4 countries in the years 1990 1995 2000 2005 67
- Some people think that certain old buildings are more worth preserving than the other ones Which types of old buildings should be preserved Do you think that the advantages of preserving these old buildings outweigh the disadvantages 78
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 251, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ted to boost mental and physical health, and if governments want to raise public ...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, hence, however, if, moreover, so, still, therefore, thus, while, for example, in addition, in conclusion, in my opinion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 13.1623246493 61% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 7.85571142285 89% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 10.4138276553 77% => OK
Relative clauses : 4.0 7.30460921844 55% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 21.0 24.0651302605 87% => OK
Preposition: 37.0 41.998997996 88% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 8.3376753507 132% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1748.0 1615.20841683 108% => OK
No of words: 295.0 315.596192385 93% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.92542372881 5.12529762239 116% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.14434120667 4.20363070211 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.08575137269 2.80592935109 110% => OK
Unique words: 171.0 176.041082164 97% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.579661016949 0.561755894193 103% => OK
syllable_count: 527.4 506.74238477 104% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.60771543086 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 5.43587174349 92% => OK
Article: 1.0 2.52805611222 40% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.10420841683 95% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 0.809619238477 247% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 5.0 4.76152304609 105% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 16.0721442886 87% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 20.2975951904 103% => OK
Sentence length SD: 50.066690218 49.4020404114 101% => OK
Chars per sentence: 124.857142857 106.682146367 117% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.0714285714 20.7667163134 101% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.28571428571 7.06120827912 132% => 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 : 3.0 3.9879759519 75% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 3.4128256513 29% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.449658904057 0.244688304435 184% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.142623643119 0.084324248473 169% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.108869648918 0.0667982634062 163% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.29007516219 0.151304729494 192% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0619814729379 0.056905535591 109% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.0 13.0946893788 130% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 33.24 50.2224549098 66% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.44779559118 150% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 11.3001002004 122% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 17.11 12.4159519038 138% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.07 8.58950901804 106% => OK
difficult_words: 82.0 78.4519038076 105% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.5 9.78957915832 128% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.1190380762 103% => OK
text_standard: 17.0 10.7795591182 158% => 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.