Changes in charitable giving
The reading and the lecture are both about changing in charitable giving. The author of the article argues that there are three possible reasons to explain for the decline in charitable giving. On the contrary, the lecturer makes several points that oppose this argument.
Firstly, the reading points out that the charitable donation has decreased because of the help of public services provided by the government. All social needs will be easily solved by the national policies. However, the total of elderly and retired people needing help is growing significantly. Therefore, the national budget will no longer be enough for needy people and charitable giving will play essential role to share the government's burden.
Secondly, the author insists that many cases of misappropriation of public funds are more and more nowadays. An amount of money donated for poor people has been used for other purposes by embezzlers. However, the professor refutes this argument, claiming that non-profit organizations are taking action to retake the citizens’ trust. Moreover, she goes on to say that these dishonest leaders have been punished. Therefore, a relief fund will soon rise again.
Finally, according to the reading, charity frauds cause a confusion in donations. Specifically, the proliferation of charity scams prevents people from doing charity. This is challenged by the lecturer. She says that doubtfulness only makes people become more careful but it does not stop them from donation. For example, benefactors will always be ready to give donations if they receive official letters from trustable organization.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-01-11 | sanddy | 80 | view |
| 2023-07-18 | dxy40747 | 3 | view |
| 2023-07-11 | YasamanEsml | 88 | view |
| 2023-07-10 | zuhn | 80 | view |
| 2023-07-07 | Hibahtabbaa | 71 | view |
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, firstly, however, if, moreover, second, secondly, so, therefore, for example, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 10.4613686534 105% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 12.0772626932 58% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 16.0 22.412803532 71% => OK
Preposition: 28.0 30.3222958057 92% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 5.01324503311 160% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1373.0 1373.03311258 100% => OK
No of words: 251.0 270.72406181 93% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.47011952191 5.08290768461 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.98032404683 4.04702891845 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.8141594378 2.5805825403 109% => OK
Unique words: 162.0 145.348785872 111% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.645418326693 0.540411800872 119% => OK
syllable_count: 428.4 419.366225166 102% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 13.0662251656 130% => OK
Sentence length: 14.0 21.2450331126 66% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 31.8035709949 49.2860985944 65% => OK
Chars per sentence: 80.7647058824 110.228320801 73% => OK
Words per sentence: 14.7647058824 21.698381199 68% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.70588235294 7.06452816374 95% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 4.33554083885 254% => Less positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.27373068433 23% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.162890940823 0.272083759551 60% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0421797243525 0.0996497079465 42% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0779223830847 0.0662205650399 118% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0924270510093 0.162205337803 57% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0767862351309 0.0443174109184 173% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.7 13.3589403974 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 48.81 53.8541721854 91% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.0289183223 90% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.85 12.2367328918 113% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.55 8.42419426049 113% => OK
difficult_words: 83.0 63.6247240618 130% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.5 10.7273730684 61% => OK
gunning_fog: 7.6 10.498013245 72% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 25.0 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.