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 country.
Discuss both these views and give your opinion.
Major worldwide sporting events, such as Olympic, world cup or Euro, regularly attract immense attention from people throughout the world. Consequently, countries in which those events are held shall have an opportunity to be set in hotline of the world. This attraction either involves in reputation or economy due to increasing investments, the number of tourists and national position. People, however, doubt that spending money on hosting big sporting events is an effective investment and believe that that amount of money should be used for other things. Personally, I refute that hosting large sporting events generates striking, positive influence on a country.
It can not be denied that plus points, for example, boosting manufacturing industry or mitigating unemployment ratio, a country possibly manage by holding a large sporting event in terms of economy. Sporting festivals are often accompanied by tourists, those who come to the country for traveling, as well as being audiences. As a result, food and beverage companies have to create new ideas for their products and develop their productivity in order to increase sales. Furthermore, the infrastructure of cities holding that event needs to be renovated and reconstructed with the aim of qualifying demands from organizers. Therefore, the infrastructure system of the city will be changed positively and citizens will take the advantages from those activities because cities’ amenities have been improved. By building or repairing construction, there is a pressing need of human resources, eventually, more jobs are going to be produced for local people.
On the other hand, those foreseeable merits are still in the short term. Firstly, the money Government spends on developing infrastructure should be a profitable and long-term investment. Nonetheless, the fact that numerous costly sporting buildings are abandoned after being served. Nest Stadium, Beijing Olympic 2008, for instance, used to considered as China’s symbol because of its unique structure and over-priced building fee. At the present time, it is only used for small sporting competitions which do not make considerable benefits, compared to its first investment. This result is virtually the same as employing situation when the created jobs do not stable enough for people to make a living. Thus, after the end of events, hundreds of people return unemployed. Finally, social security will be also affected as a result of raising crimes such as burglary, prostitute, and drugs. These are apparent and undeniable pieces of evidence indicating that money was not used correctly to bring long-term benefits.
To conclude, the downsides are much more than the plus points coming from hosting sporting events. Thus, it is crucial to consider carefully pros and cons in advance when a country decides to host a big event.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-08-05 | Nguyễn Tiến Vũ | 56 | view |
| 2023-08-05 | Nguyễn Tiến Vũ | 78 | view |
| 2023-08-05 | Nguyễn Tiến Vũ | 84 | view |
| 2023-06-25 | linhchihwg | 82 | view |
| 2023-04-01 | Charles Le | 84 | view |
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, consequently, finally, first, firstly, furthermore, however, if, nonetheless, so, still, therefore, thus, well, as for, for example, for instance, such as, as a result, as well as, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 24.0 13.1623246493 182% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 7.85571142285 102% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 10.4138276553 144% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 7.30460921844 178% => OK
Pronoun: 23.0 24.0651302605 96% => OK
Preposition: 51.0 41.998997996 121% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 8.3376753507 180% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2428.0 1615.20841683 150% => OK
No of words: 444.0 315.596192385 141% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.46846846847 5.12529762239 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.5903493882 4.20363070211 109% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.98113811853 2.80592935109 106% => OK
Unique words: 264.0 176.041082164 150% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.594594594595 0.561755894193 106% => OK
syllable_count: 751.5 506.74238477 148% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 5.43587174349 166% => OK
Article: 7.0 2.52805611222 277% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 3.0 2.10420841683 143% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 0.809619238477 124% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.76152304609 105% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 16.0721442886 137% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 20.2975951904 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 31.767101856 49.4020404114 64% => OK
Chars per sentence: 110.363636364 106.682146367 103% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.1818181818 20.7667163134 97% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.27272727273 7.06120827912 131% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 15.0 8.67935871743 173% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 3.9879759519 50% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 3.4128256513 147% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.335311166637 0.244688304435 137% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0879663938683 0.084324248473 104% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0841026567892 0.0667982634062 126% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.208726545284 0.151304729494 138% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.104929549038 0.056905535591 184% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.4 13.0946893788 110% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 42.72 50.2224549098 85% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 11.3001002004 109% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.45 12.4159519038 116% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.03 8.58950901804 117% => OK
difficult_words: 152.0 78.4519038076 194% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 9.78957915832 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.1190380762 99% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 10.7795591182 111% => 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.