People have different opinions as to whether nations should spend the national budget on hosting international sporting events. Personally, I believe that the events have beneficial impacts on the host nations as a whole.
Advocates of the former view might assert that spending on sporting events could hurt countries’ economies. Staging the international sporting events would incur enormous expenses, to the detriment of the host nations’ budgets. The expenditure on renovating their stadiums, implementing higher levels of security, and hiring performance artists is so significant that hardly can poverty-stricken nations afford it. For example, instead of spending billions of dollars on hosting the 2010 World Cup and then drowning in debt, South Africa should have been expended those budgets on addressing the physiological needs of their citizens, such as improving the standard of living and eliminating starvation.
However, I support the view that nations might reap a multiplicity of benefits from staging those sporting events. Firstly, A wide range of employment opportunities are available during years of planning and investment, and this will contribute to a decrease in unemployment. Secondly, enthusiasm and excitement are an indispensable part of these events; it is clear from this emotional boost that people of the host nations will experience a drastic improvement in their life satisfaction. Lastly, such events are conducive to the development of culture and tourism in the host nations. Social cohesion and cultural understanding are further developed, thanks to stadiums and arenas thronged with flows of people from all over the world.
In conclusion, I concur with the portion of people who believe that the benefits of hosting international events would outweigh the drawbacks, although it might dig immensely into countries’ economies.
- Some people think that it is a waste of money for countries to host big sporting events like the world cup and that the money would be better spent on other things However others think that hosting large sporting events has a clear positive impact on a co 78
- Some people think that it is a waste of money for countries to host big sporting events like the world cup and that the money would be better spent on other things However others think that hosting large sporting events has a clear positive impact on a co 56
- Some people think that it is a waste of money for countries to host big sporting events like the world cup and that the money would be better spent on other things However others think that hosting large sporting events has a clear positive impact on a co 84
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 32, Rule ID: WHETHER[6]
Message: Can you shorten this phrase to just 'whether', or rephrase the sentence to avoid "as to"?
Suggestion: whether
People have different opinions as to whether nations should spend the national budge...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...mpacts on the host nations as a whole. Advocates of the former view might asser...
^^^^
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... of living and eliminating starvation. However, I support the view that nations...
^^^^
Line 3, column 289, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...to a decrease in unemployment. Secondly, enthusiasm and excitement are an indispe...
^^
Line 3, column 744, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...lows of people from all over the world. In conclusion, I concur with the portion...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, firstly, however, if, lastly, second, secondly, so, then, thus, as to, for example, in conclusion, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 7.0 13.1623246493 53% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 7.85571142285 140% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 10.4138276553 86% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 7.30460921844 96% => OK
Pronoun: 20.0 24.0651302605 83% => OK
Preposition: 40.0 41.998997996 95% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 8.3376753507 144% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1598.0 1615.20841683 99% => OK
No of words: 281.0 315.596192385 89% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.68683274021 5.12529762239 111% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.09427095027 4.20363070211 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.12409711378 2.80592935109 111% => OK
Unique words: 165.0 176.041082164 94% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.5871886121 0.561755894193 105% => OK
syllable_count: 477.0 506.74238477 94% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 5.43587174349 74% => OK
Article: 2.0 2.52805611222 79% => 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: 12.0 16.0721442886 75% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 23.0 20.2975951904 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 56.0250440032 49.4020404114 113% => OK
Chars per sentence: 133.166666667 106.682146367 125% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.4166666667 20.7667163134 113% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.83333333333 7.06120827912 139% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 5.01903807615 100% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.67935871743 81% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 3.9879759519 50% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.215951737821 0.244688304435 88% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0856740354657 0.084324248473 102% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0555601709818 0.0667982634062 83% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.138415811585 0.151304729494 91% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0219409015843 0.056905535591 39% => 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: 39.67 50.2224549098 79% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.44779559118 150% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 11.3001002004 119% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.02 12.4159519038 129% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.4 8.58950901804 121% => OK
difficult_words: 100.0 78.4519038076 127% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 9.78957915832 107% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.1190380762 111% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 10.7795591182 102% => 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.