By and large, it is established beyond doubt that the speed growth of the technology in the space exploration is remarkable which makes the governments support the space discovering. In my opinion, however, the opposite is true. This is due to the fact that countries have got more necessary problems and the government could fund on the other practical technology’s devices. In what follows, I will delve into the most outstanding reasons for holding such a view.
The first compelling reason corroborating my idea is that each country encounters lots of problems which the governments should solve, and funding the space exploration is not too necessary to solve first. It is crystal clear that each country is faced with lots of serious issues. As a matter of fact, the tensions with which people are encountered such as terrific, air pollution and so on. Consequently, it is better to deal with these problems, which are bothering people. For example, in my country, the government is trying to make a new spacecraft to explore space. Moreover, people in my country are countered with economic issues, which are too essential to solving first. So, although in my country the government is exploring the space and are ranked about the top ten in the world, lots of people in my country don’t have any suitable food to eat. This example clearly illustrates that if government support people’s problems instead of its problems, the country will be succeeded.
Furthermore, supporting technology is important for each country, and the government should focus on more useful devices. Meanwhile, using technology is for living conveniently. It is axiomatic that funding on the space discovery doesn’t have any profit for people, and it is only grateful for the government. Thus, the government has to concentrate on supporting devices, which are related to technology, that people use in their routine life. For instance, I study environmental science. We have contacted many times with the government to support us to make a new device, which reduces air pollution, however, the government has rejected our proposal because they don’t want to fund for anything else except spacecraft. Hence, the government could make a better life for their people with supporting technology in a practical way.
By perusing the above paragraphs, although the governments are trying to find a new way to live in a space next years and they pay lots of money for discovering, I personally contend that it’s a waste of money. This is because of priority problems with which countries are faced and invent more tools which are useful for people instead of the governments. As for this writer’s advice, I vehemently urge individually to the governments to care about their people for their satisfaction.
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? The food we ate in the past was healthier than the food we eat today. 73
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Visiting the museums is the best way to learn about a country. 70
- Do you agree or disagree? It is impossible to always be completely honest with your friends. 66
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? It's a waste of money for Government to fund space travel or space exploration. Give specific examples and details to support your answer. 70
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 825, Rule ID: IN_A_X_MANNER[1]
Message: Consider replacing "in a practical way" with adverb for "practical"; eg, "in a hasty manner" with "hastily".
...their people with supporting technology in a practical way. By perusing the above paragraphs, a...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
consequently, first, furthermore, hence, however, if, moreover, so, thus, while, as for, as to, for example, for instance, such as, as a matter of fact, by and large, in my opinion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 26.0 15.1003584229 172% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 9.8082437276 61% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 13.8261648746 65% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 11.0286738351 154% => OK
Pronoun: 39.0 43.0788530466 91% => OK
Preposition: 58.0 52.1666666667 111% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 8.0752688172 211% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2373.0 1977.66487455 120% => OK
No of words: 456.0 407.700716846 112% => OK
Chars per words: 5.20394736842 4.8611393121 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.62105577807 4.48103885553 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.01433475702 2.67179642975 113% => OK
Unique words: 216.0 212.727598566 102% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.473684210526 0.524837075471 90% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 725.4 618.680645161 117% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.51630824373 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 13.0 9.59856630824 135% => OK
Article: 8.0 3.08781362007 259% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 4.0 3.51792114695 114% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.86738351254 161% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.94265232975 101% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 20.6003584229 107% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 20.1344086022 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 52.2819952258 48.9658058833 107% => OK
Chars per sentence: 107.863636364 100.406767564 107% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.7272727273 20.6045352989 101% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.18181818182 5.45110844103 150% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.5376344086 18% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 15.0 11.8709677419 126% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 3.85842293907 104% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.88709677419 61% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.250703844433 0.236089414692 106% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0826211384952 0.076458572812 108% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0517797064596 0.0737576698707 70% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.175428613757 0.150856017488 116% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0271761972643 0.0645574589148 42% => 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: 13.4 11.7677419355 114% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 58.1214874552 88% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.10430107527 144% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 10.1575268817 109% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.88 10.9000537634 118% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.06 8.01818996416 101% => OK
difficult_words: 99.0 86.8835125448 114% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 10.002688172 120% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.0537634409 99% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 10.247311828 127% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Better to have 5 paragraphs with 3 arguments. And try always support/against one side but compare two sides, like this:
para 1: introduction
para 2: reason 1. address both of the views presented for reason 1
para 3: reason 2. address both of the views presented for reason 2
para 4: reason 3. address both of the views presented for reason 3
para 5: conclusion.
So how to find out those reasons. There is a formula:
reasons == advantages or
reasons == disadvantages
for example, we can always apply 'save time', 'save/make money', 'find a job', 'make friends', 'get more information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.
or we can apply 'waste time', 'waste money', 'no job', 'make bad friends', 'get bad information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.
Rates: 70.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 21.0 Out of 30
---------------------
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.