One of the most conspicuous trend of today's world is colossal upsurge in number of people believing that whether use of money to encourage tourists towards cultural traditions can be harmed or it is a save way to protect. In this essay both apprehension will be discussed. In my opinion, the latter sound more rational.
To commence with, there are deluge of arguments in favor of making attractions by using funds towards cultural of visitors. The most preponderant one is to contract attractive building. To elaborate it, building are the best way build attractive tourists to visit in any country such as Taj Mahel in India where large number of people visit to see and this helps to people to learn about culture of India. It can not only contribute to influence people to know about culture, but also lead to earn employment to local people. Thanks to wide range of advantage money offers to culture, mass can enhance productivity and quality of their lives much ease and efficacy. Needless to say, all these merits stand in one good stead, as far as augmenting their chance of prosperity and excellence is concerned.
Furthermore, another pivotal aspect of aforementioned preposition is that it is only likely to help one excel and thrive by providing facilities to visitors. This is because, when more tourist visit on their nation, more money will be generated which they can use to prevent their culture from disappearing. For instance, the study result published by the government of Australia in March 2017, clearly indicate that number of visitor were increase in Singapore by providing facilities to their tourist from fund they earn from tourists. Hence, it is clear that why many people are in favor of this viewpoint.
On the other hand, a section of society contradict above said view. The primary factor that number visitor will increased which may damage the traditional buildings because it is possible that large number of tourist make use of building high level which become weak and destroy. Therefore, some are not agree with above viewpoint.
To conclude, having preponderant over above said it is crystal clear that use of money to making attractions of tourist is indeed to great to ignore.
- Writing task 1 The Car Ownership in the UK from 1975 to 2005 78
- The graph below shows how money was spent on different forms of entertainment over a five year period 84
- The graph below shows how money was spent on different forms of entertainment over a five year period 78
- An increase in the production of consumer goods results in damage of our natural environment What are the causes and solutions 73
- The graph below shows how money was spent on different forms of entertainment over a five year period
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 29, Rule ID: THERE_RE_MANY[3]
Message: Possible agreement error. Did you mean 'deluges'?
Suggestion: deluges
... rational. To commence with, there are deluge of arguments in favor of making attract...
^^^^^^
Line 3, column 610, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... people are in favor of this viewpoint. On the other hand, a section of society ...
^^^^^
Line 4, column 113, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[1]
Message: The verb 'will' requires the base form of the verb: 'increase'
Suggestion: increase
...primary factor that number visitor will increased which may damage the traditional buildi...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 305, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'agreed'.
Suggestion: agreed
...ak and destroy. Therefore, some are not agree with above viewpoint. To conclude, hav...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, furthermore, hence, may, so, therefore, for instance, such as, in my opinion, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 13.1623246493 144% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 7.85571142285 102% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 10.4138276553 77% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 7.30460921844 164% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 24.0651302605 112% => OK
Preposition: 72.0 41.998997996 171% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 8.3376753507 108% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1851.0 1615.20841683 115% => OK
No of words: 371.0 315.596192385 118% => OK
Chars per words: 4.98921832884 5.12529762239 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.38877662729 4.20363070211 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.69651460164 2.80592935109 96% => OK
Unique words: 205.0 176.041082164 116% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.5525606469 0.561755894193 98% => OK
syllable_count: 593.1 506.74238477 117% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.60771543086 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 5.43587174349 55% => OK
Article: 5.0 2.52805611222 198% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.10420841683 95% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 0.809619238477 124% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.76152304609 126% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 16.0721442886 106% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 20.2975951904 103% => OK
Sentence length SD: 62.3977086794 49.4020404114 126% => OK
Chars per sentence: 108.882352941 106.682146367 102% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.8235294118 20.7667163134 105% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.23529411765 7.06120827912 88% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.38176352705 114% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.01903807615 80% => 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: 2.0 3.4128256513 59% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.285350142498 0.244688304435 117% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0753895264224 0.084324248473 89% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0537198585992 0.0667982634062 80% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.15215299762 0.151304729494 101% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0523391992353 0.056905535591 92% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.0 13.0946893788 99% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 50.2224549098 100% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.44779559118 42% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 11.3001002004 102% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.66 12.4159519038 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.42 8.58950901804 98% => OK
difficult_words: 88.0 78.4519038076 112% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 9.78957915832 82% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.1190380762 103% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 10.7795591182 111% => 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.