Some people believe that spending money on developing technology for space exploration is unjustifiable, and there are more beneficial ways to spend money. Do you agree or disagree?
It has invariably been polarising over whether budget should be spent on space programmes or other essential aspects of life. As far as I am concerned, I strongly support the belief that public expenditure should be allocated to various crucial sectors such as education or medicine. However, investing in producing more advanced technology for outer space exploration is not worthless at all.
On the one hand, the exploration of space exerts several unequivocally positive influences on human’s life. An adamant rationale is communication all over the globe has been significantly improved since the appearance of satellites. For instance, NASA, a synonymous space organisation has launched a plethora of satellites in orbit, facilitating the broadcast of signals in the form of audio and video to four corners of the world. Therefore, the human race can have access to television, allowing them to watch international events immediately anywhere on Earth. Secondly, the efficiency of satellites in predicting climate changes has been scientifically proven. Human beings now are having chances to take precautions before manifold natural catastrophes like fierce avalanches or tsunamis. Despite the fact that investments in technology served for space programmes worth a huge amount of money, it is cost-effective because of all the reasons I mentioned above.
Nevertheless, other important sectors such as education, medicine or transportation also need financial aid owing to a multitude of advantageous impacts on mankind. One evident justification is there are various outrageously disastrous problems occurring in modern society which require immediate actions. Take COVID-19 pandemic as a clear example. It is estimated that the mortality rate of this health crisis has surpassed over 700 thousand people, but no effective vaccine has been formulated. Consequently, there is a strong agreement that international officials should spend their expenditure on addressing this disaster as soon as possible. Thus, devoting money to explore extraterrestrial life is not sensible now since there are more imperative issues which demand instant financial support than that.
From my perspective, spending on manufacturing technically advanced gadgets with an aim of gaining a deeper understanding in extraterrestrial civilization is not unwarranted, yet other vital aspects of life can not be neglected.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-08-17 | phghuyn | 60 | view |
| 2019-08-16 | dhanya sino | 61 | view |
| 2018-12-02 | Frank Chen | 89 | view |
- Some people believe that spending money on developing technology for space exploration is unjustifiable and there are more beneficial ways to spend money Do you agree or disagree 60
- Maintaining public libraries is a waste of money since computer technology can replace their functions Do you agree or disagree 86
- In many places people s lifestyle is changing rapidly and this affects family relationships Do you think the advantages of those developments outweigh the disadvantages 84
- The diagram below shows how ethanol fuel is produced from corn 73
- The chart below show the average percentages in typical meals of three nutrients all of which may be unhealthy if eaten too much Summarise the infomation by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant 78
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, consequently, however, if, nevertheless, second, secondly, so, therefore, thus, for instance, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 13.1623246493 137% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 7.85571142285 76% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 10.4138276553 67% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 7.30460921844 96% => OK
Pronoun: 16.0 24.0651302605 66% => OK
Preposition: 47.0 41.998997996 112% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 8.3376753507 144% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2064.0 1615.20841683 128% => OK
No of words: 357.0 315.596192385 113% => OK
Chars per words: 5.78151260504 5.12529762239 113% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.34677393335 4.20363070211 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.35073254834 2.80592935109 119% => OK
Unique words: 229.0 176.041082164 130% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.641456582633 0.561755894193 114% => OK
syllable_count: 666.0 506.74238477 131% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.9 1.60771543086 118% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 5.43587174349 74% => OK
Article: 5.0 2.52805611222 198% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.10420841683 48% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 0.809619238477 247% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 4.76152304609 63% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 16.0721442886 106% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 20.2975951904 103% => OK
Sentence length SD: 40.1906356908 49.4020404114 81% => OK
Chars per sentence: 121.411764706 106.682146367 114% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.0 20.7667163134 101% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.58823529412 7.06120827912 93% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 8.67935871743 150% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 3.9879759519 50% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 3.4128256513 59% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.141733533599 0.244688304435 58% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.038532587427 0.084324248473 46% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0517227899152 0.0667982634062 77% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0767950052477 0.151304729494 51% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0211445300134 0.056905535591 37% => 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: 16.3 13.0946893788 124% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 24.78 50.2224549098 49% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 11.2 7.44779559118 150% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.0 11.3001002004 133% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.24 12.4159519038 131% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.74 8.58950901804 125% => OK
difficult_words: 137.0 78.4519038076 175% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 9.78957915832 107% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.1190380762 103% => 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.