Some countries achieve international success by building specialized facilities to train top athletes instead of providing sports facilities that everyone can use. Do you think it is a positive or negative development?
There is a widely-held view among people that some nations invest in sports facilities for the use of professional athletes rather than for general public. While there has been a growing body in favor of this action, which will assist in accomplishing international sports awards on behalf of the countries, I am of the opinion that this trend is a detrimental development.
On the one hand, governance policies that pump a considerable amount of money into selecting and upgrading facilities would benefit the professionals. Behind the glow of winning, being an athlete is undeniably a risky career that can only perform in the short term. To be at the peak of the condition, players will be forced to participate frequently in constant hard training, pushing them towards the limits on the grounds, which might result in a high probability of injuries. If they were trained in specialized facilities to ensure safety grounds, this would prevent and minimize life-threatening injuries, acting as a stimulus for them to achieve goals more quickly.
On the other hand, excessively focusing on training facilities for professionals has a negative influence from a societal perspective. Firstly, the lack of public sports facilities is the main factor accounting for the increase in a sedentary lifestyle, which acts as a precursor to confront much more severe potential health risks such as obesity, diabetes or heart illness. Secondly, the government uses the country’s budget to build special facilities, primarily funded by the annual tax of all citizens, not just specific individuals. Hence, funding such facilities would cut the federal budget for other essential areas like health, education and the military. This will act as a deterrent to sustaining social stability, which renders the country’s socioeconomic growth ineffective.
In conclusion, it might seem sensible to me that even though this phenomenon has some positive effects, it would be better if policymakers devote more time and financial resources to other fields to benefit the majority as a whole.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-01-18 | honguyenlily | 84 | view |
| 2023-11-06 | thaokim2003 | 61 | view |
| 2023-11-02 | tracywu | 73 | view |
| 2023-10-23 | Giang Tran | 67 | view |
| 2023-10-03 | Cuberates | 73 | view |
- Some organisations believe that their employees should dress smartly Others value quality of work above appearance Discuss both these views and give your own opinion 78
- In many countries plastic containers have become more popular than ever They are used in many businesses such as food and drink industry Do you think the advantages outweigh its disadvantages 84
- In some countries governments are encouraging industries and businesses to move out of large cities and into regional areas Do you think the advantages of this development outweigh its disadvantages 89
- People are consuming more and more sugar based drinks Why What can be done to reduce sugary drink consumption 67
- Richer countries often give money to poorer countries but it does not solve poverty Therefore developed countries should give other types of help to poor countries rather than financial aid To what extend do you agree or disagree 89
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 141, Rule ID: GENERAL_XX[1]
Message: Use simply 'public'.
Suggestion: public
...f professional athletes rather than for general public. While there has been a growing body in...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, firstly, hence, if, second, secondly, so, while, in conclusion, in fact, such as, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 13.1623246493 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 7.85571142285 127% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 10.4138276553 48% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 9.0 7.30460921844 123% => OK
Pronoun: 17.0 24.0651302605 71% => OK
Preposition: 40.0 41.998997996 95% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 8.3376753507 72% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1751.0 1615.20841683 108% => OK
No of words: 327.0 315.596192385 104% => OK
Chars per words: 5.35474006116 5.12529762239 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.25242769721 4.20363070211 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.08741003751 2.80592935109 110% => OK
Unique words: 206.0 176.041082164 117% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.62996941896 0.561755894193 112% => OK
syllable_count: 546.3 506.74238477 108% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 5.43587174349 92% => OK
Article: 2.0 2.52805611222 79% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.10420841683 95% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.76152304609 105% => 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: 27.0 20.2975951904 133% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 43.0838974818 49.4020404114 87% => OK
Chars per sentence: 145.916666667 106.682146367 137% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.25 20.7667163134 131% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.83333333333 7.06120827912 125% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.67935871743 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 3.9879759519 75% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 3.4128256513 29% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.205336437203 0.244688304435 84% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0693870526324 0.084324248473 82% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0427866228465 0.0667982634062 64% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.107963750524 0.151304729494 71% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0425316906512 0.056905535591 75% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.4 13.0946893788 133% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 35.61 50.2224549098 71% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.44779559118 150% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.0 11.3001002004 133% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.05 12.4159519038 113% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.38 8.58950901804 121% => OK
difficult_words: 112.0 78.4519038076 143% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.5 9.78957915832 158% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.8 10.1190380762 126% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 10.7795591182 139% => 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.