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 modern civilisation, there is a fact that several nations construct specific buildings to master elite athletes’ skills rather than give public athletics facilities provisions. From my perspective, I concur that this phenomenon could result in both beneficial and detrimental effects.
It is undeniable that governments could set up infrastructure specialisation for skilled trainees. That is because their potential can be maximised through those facilities so that they could acquire desirable achievements in international competitions. Hence, outstanding sportspeople could help their countries become more famous in athletics. For instance, in Japan, national practice stadiums have been built like Ajinomoto for professional guidance to players to discover their best abilities. From these stadiums, iconic footballers have been created, such as Mitoma and Ito, who shocked the world by letting the national team to the round of 16 in the recent World Cup.
On the other hand, this propensity could trigger numerous drawbacks. Firstly, a budget concentration on sports’ special constructions to train sports stars would lead to a shortage in financial expenditure on community sports facilities. When this trend continues, citizens might not have access to open sports areas, which results in a sedentary lifestyle with deteriorating health conditions. Furthermore, a scarcity of public sports accommodation may decrease the chances of finding people’s innate possibilities related to sports. To elaborate, citizens would have difficulties searching for sports infrastructure; thus, they may not find proper sites to practise their sports skills. As a result, talents who could achieve notable advances in sports might not be discovered, and that would be a serious loss for the country.
In conclusion, while there are some upsides to building specific land for top athletes to enhance their performances and improve a nation’s standing, I hold a firm belief that it could result in many downsides, including worsening public health and low possibilities of uncovering gifted athletes.
| 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 |
- Some people believe that children that commit crimes should be punished Others think the parents should be punished instead Discuss both views and give your own opinion 61
- Rich countries often give money to poorer countries but it does not solve poverty Therefore developed countries should give other types of help to poor countries rather than financial aid To what extent do you agree or disagree 78
- 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 84
- 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 89
- Any country should be able to sell goods to other countries without the restrictions of the government Do you agree or disagree 61
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, firstly, furthermore, hence, if, may, so, thus, while, for instance, in conclusion, such as, as a result, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 13.1623246493 68% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 7.85571142285 191% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 10.4138276553 48% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 11.0 7.30460921844 151% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 24.0651302605 100% => OK
Preposition: 38.0 41.998997996 90% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 8.3376753507 84% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1805.0 1615.20841683 112% => OK
No of words: 310.0 315.596192385 98% => OK
Chars per words: 5.82258064516 5.12529762239 114% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.19604776685 4.20363070211 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.20062591433 2.80592935109 114% => OK
Unique words: 206.0 176.041082164 117% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.664516129032 0.561755894193 118% => OK
syllable_count: 533.7 506.74238477 105% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 5.43587174349 110% => OK
Article: 2.0 2.52805611222 79% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.10420841683 143% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 0.809619238477 124% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.76152304609 147% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 16.0721442886 87% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 20.2975951904 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 52.9709681749 49.4020404114 107% => OK
Chars per sentence: 128.928571429 106.682146367 121% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.1428571429 20.7667163134 107% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.28571428571 7.06120827912 132% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.67935871743 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 3.9879759519 75% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 3.4128256513 88% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.159161317624 0.244688304435 65% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0484411437928 0.084324248473 57% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0518650648155 0.0667982634062 78% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0885217666617 0.151304729494 59% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0144918459391 0.056905535591 25% => 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: 17.1 13.0946893788 131% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 40.69 50.2224549098 81% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.44779559118 150% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.1 11.3001002004 116% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.48 12.4159519038 133% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.53 8.58950901804 123% => OK
difficult_words: 114.0 78.4519038076 145% => 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: 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.